Z-Indexes Performance Report: October–November 2025 Market Stress Test

How Conservative, Balanced, and Advanced Z-Indexes Performed Across Crypto, Equities, and Real-World Assets

Market Overview and Objective of this Report

October and November 2025 were two very different months inside the same risk window. On the traditional side, global equities stayed broadly constructive: the S&P 500 delivered a positive return in October and finished the two months up around +2–3%, while the Nasdaq remained near all-time highs despite a small pullback in November.

On the digital side, Bitcoin and the broader crypto market went through a classic bull-market shake-out: after making new highs in early October, BTC entered a drawdown of roughly –20% over the two months, with intramonth moves closer to –30% from peak to trough and heavy pressure across many altcoins.

Against that backdrop, the three Z-Indexes: Conservative Growth, Balanced Growth and Advanced Growth, behaved as they are supposed to behave. They participated in risk assets on the way up, and then absorbed part of the shock when stress arrived, without turning into a single-asset bet.

Over October–November, the indices declined by approximately:

• –4.0% (Conservative)
  
• –7.1% (Balanced)
  
• –10.4% (Advanced)
  

Maximum drawdowns were roughly:

• –6.8% (Conservative)
  
• –11.7% (Balanced)
  
• –16.0% (Advanced)

In other words, they sat between equities and pure crypto: negative because they still carry crypto and ZIG exposure, but with drawdowns roughly half or less of Bitcoin's, and clearly more controlled than a simple "crypto beta" allocation.

Looking at the full track since launch in late April, all three indices remain in profit as of 10 December 2025, with cumulative returns of around:

• +3–4% for Conservative Growth
  
• +9% for Balanced Growth
  
• +6% for Advanced Growth

The equity curves tell the same story: a steady build-up into early October, a controlled give-back during the crypto sell-off, and then a partial recovery into December.

It is important to remember that each Z-Index is a multi-engine portfolio, not a monolithic crypto trade. Inside the indexes, you will find:

• Trading strategies that are naturally compared to Bitcoin and the broader crypto market,
  
• Tokenized equity sleeves and BlackRock iShares exposure that we compare to traditional benchmarks such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq.
  
• Income and RWA / credit strategies that are better evaluated against conservative yield alternatives rather than high-beta assets.

Some of these components outperformed their reference markets over the period; others lagged. What matters for you as an investor is how they interact inside the portfolio and how the index as a whole behaves versus the main risk benchmarks.

This report aims to walk through that behavior in detail for October and November 2025. For each Z-Index, we will review the contribution of its underlying services, explain what happened in their specific markets, and compare their results with the relevant benchmarks: crypto services versus BTC and altcoins, equity-linked sleeves versus indexes such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, and yield strategies versus more defensive income alternatives.

Throughout, we will focus on two questions:

• Did each index stay within its expected risk band and drawdown limits?
  
• Did the overall experience offer a smoother path than a concentrated crypto allocation, while still participating in growth?

We will close with a brief overview of the new services added from December onwards, explaining how these changes are intended to strengthen diversification, address the weaker spots observed in October–November, and keep each Z-Index aligned with its target risk/return profile going forward.

1. Falcon-Powered Yield Strategy

Role in the Indexes

Falcon is the stability sleeve inside all three Z-Indexes. It runs an ultra-low-volatility yield strategy and is there to smooth the ride, not to chase high returns. In October and November, it was the largest allocation in Conservative and Balanced and a meaningful position in Advanced.

Performance in October–November 2025

From internal data:

• October: +0.7%
  
• November: +0.6%
  
• Two-month combined (Oct + Nov): ≈ +1.3%
  
• Max drawdown in the window: 0.0% (equity curve was essentially monotonic up)

While the rest of the market was swinging hard, Falcon kept adding a small but consistent positive carry with no drawdown in that period.

Context vs Benchmarks

Over the same Oct–Nov window:

• Bitcoin fell from ~114k in September to ~90k at the end of November, a drawdown of about -20.8% across the two months.
  
• ZIG dropped roughly -19.4% in October and -37.2% in November, for a combined move of about -49.4%.

Against that backdrop, Falcon's +1.3% with zero drawdown is exactly what you want from a "cash-plus / shock absorber" sleeve: it doesn't try to outrun BTC in good months; it aims to not participate in the crash.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index (Oct–Nov)

Using the October–November allocations and the two-month Falcon return (~+1.3%):

• Conservative (60% Falcon): ≈ +0.8% contribution
  
• Balanced (58% Falcon): ≈ +0.8% contribution
  
• Advanced (40% Falcon): ≈ +0.5% contribution

Falcon was a small positive anchor, offsetting part of the damage coming from the more volatile sleeves.

2. BlackRock iShares Physical Gold ETC

Role in the Indexes

BlackRock iShares is the gold proxy in the Z-Indexes: it's your main exposure to a traditional defensive asset (physical gold) rather than crypto. It was:

• A significant position in the Conservative
  
• A smaller stabilizer in Balanced
  
• Not included in Advanced

Performance in October–November 2025

From the JSON:

• October: ≈ +0.7%
  
• November: ≈ +5.6%
  
• Two-month combined: ≈ +6.3%
  
• Max drawdown: ≈ –8.6%

So gold had a classic risk-hedge profile: some choppiness and pullbacks within the period, but ending the two months firmly positive.

Comparison vs Gold itself

Gold spot prices (XAU/USD) made a new all-time high in October 2025 and finished November higher than late October. Using late-October vs end-November closes, gold gained roughly +5.5% across the window.

BlackRock iShares delivered about +6.3% over the same period, in line with or slightly ahead of the underlying gold move, with an intra-window drawdown around 8–9% (well within what you'd expect from a volatile-but-defensive commodity that just made new highs).

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index (Oct–Nov)

Using the allocations and two-month return:

• Conservative – 25% weight
  
  • Contribution ≈ +1.6% to the index
    
    
• Balanced – 10% weight
  
  • Contribution ≈ +0.6% to the index

So, in both Conservative and Balanced, BlackRock iShares materially offset the losses coming from the crypto sleeves. In the Conservative specifically, between Falcon (+0.8%) and BlackRock (+1.6%), you had about +2.4% of cushion from the defensive block during a period where BTC was down ~21%.

Narrative Takeaway for the Report

BlackRock iShares did exactly what we hired it to do: behave like gold, not like an altcoin. While crypto was under pressure, this sleeve delivered a clear positive return and helped keep the Conservative and Balanced indexes inside their risk bands.

3. The ZIG Vault

Role in the Indexes

The Zig Vault is the ecosystem bet: it buys ZIG and stakes it. Returns = ZIG price performance + staking yield. It was a 10% sleeve in all three Z-Indexes during October and November.

This means it is structurally high beta to ZIG: when ZIG goes up, it amplifies index upside; when ZIG sells off, it is one of the main sources of drawdown.

Performance in October–November 2025

From data:

• October: ≈ -14.0%
  
• November: ≈ -36.8%
  
• Two-month combined: ≈ -45.6%
  
• Max drawdown in the window: ≈ -53.3%

So The Zig Vault went through a deep, but expected, drawdown given the behavior of the underlying token.

Comparison vs ZIG Token

The external ZIG token data for 2025 shows:

• October: ≈ -19.4% (open 0.11 → close 0.09)
  
• November: ≈ -37.2% (open 0.09 → close 0.05)
  
• Combined Oct + Nov: about -49.4%

So:

• ZIG token itself lost ~49% over the two months.
  
• The Zig Vault (staking strategy) lost ~45.6% over the same period.

In other words, the strategy behaved almost exactly like a long-only ZIG position with a small yield offset: it did not amplify the token risk with leverage or DCA; it simply tracked the large downward move with a slightly smaller net loss.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index (Oct–Nov)

At 10% weight in each index, the two-month move of ~-45.6% translates roughly into:

• Conservative: ≈ -4.6% drag
  
• Balanced: ≈ -4.6% drag
  
• Advanced: ≈ -4.6% drag

This is crucial context for investors:

• Conservative was down about -4.0% in Oct–Nov, with a max drawdown of ~-6.8%.
  
• Balanced was down about -7.1%, max DD ~-11.7%.
  
• Advanced was down about -10.4%, max DD ~-16.0%.

Yet a single 10% ZIG sleeve was responsible for about -4.6% of performance across all three indexes. The fact that:

• Conservative still held at -4.0%,
  
• Balanced at -7.1%,
  
• Advanced at -10.4%

While ZIG itself fell ~-49% and BTC ~-21% in the same window, it shows that the rest of the portfolio (Falcon, gold, diversified trading) was doing its job: containing the systemic impact of a large token-specific drawdown. With the imminent inclusion of lending/borrowing protocols to ZIGChain, and the combination with stZig as a liquid token, we expect to increase the APY of Zigs generated during staking by 50%. This will allow us to reduce the negative impact of volatility and increase its positive effects.

Narrative Takeaway for the Report

The Zig Vault behaved as a pure ecosystem bet on ZIG. In a period where the token suffered one of its worst two-month sequences of the year, the sleeve delivered a very large, but structurally understandable, drawdown.

Because its weight was capped at 10%, the Z-Indexes absorbed that shock without breaching their risk bands, demonstrating why we keep this kind of exposure small and diversified inside a broader multi-engine portfolio.

4. Crypto Dividend Engine

Role in the Indexes

Crypto Dividend Engine is the spot-crypto income sleeve of the Z-Indexes. It runs unlevered spot positions and collects yield (fees/funding), so its PnL is tightly linked to the direction of the crypto market: it tends to do well in uptrends or orderly ranges and suffers in sideways or bearish markets.

Allocations in October–November 2025:

• Conservative Growth: 5%
  
• Balanced Growth: 5%
  
• Advanced Growth: 20%

So it was a small satellite in Conservative and Balanced, and a meaningful growth engine in Advanced.

Performance in October–November 2025

Service-level performance (01 Oct – 30 Nov 2025):

• October: ≈ –2.9%
• November: ≈ –11.6%
• Two-month total: ≈ –14.2%
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –29%

This path is what you expect from a spot crypto portfolio in a period where the market is already weak in October and then accelerates to the downside in November.

Comparison vs Bitcoin and the Broader Crypto Market

Over the same two months, Bitcoin posted:

• A small loss in October (already signaling a tired market), and
  
• A very weak November, with a mid–high-teens negative return for the month and one of the worst monthly prints of the year.

So, relative to that backdrop:

• In October, Crypto Dividend Engine lost less than BTC but still printed a negative month, consistent with a spot sleeve facing a soft market.
  
• In November, it underperformed a pure BTC position in absolute terms but within the same directional move: a down-month driven by broad crypto weakness and poor conditions for income strategies.

As a spot crypto service, it naturally struggles in sideways or bearish environments.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ –14.2% two-month service return and the October–November weights:

• Conservative Growth – 5% weight
  
  • Approx. contribution: –0.7 percentage points over the period
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 5% weight
  
  • Approx. contribution: –0.7 percentage points
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 20% weight
  
  • Approx. contribution: –2.8 percentage points

So:

• In Conservative and Balanced, Crypto Dividend Engine was a contained drag: noticeable but small versus the overall index result and largely absorbed by stabilizers like Falcon and gold.
  
• In Advanced, its larger allocation made it one of the key negative contributors to the October–November drawdown, which is consistent with the higher-risk mandate of that index.

5. Delta – Anchor Strategy

Role in the Indexes

Delta – Anchor Strategy is a futures trend-following system without leverage. It is designed to profit from clear directional moves and accept normal sequences of stop-losses when markets become range-bound or choppy. In October–November it was included only in:

• Balanced Growth: 5% allocation
  
• Conservative Growth: 0%
  
• Advanced Growth: 0%

So within the Z-Indexes, Delta Anchor is a small, unlevered trend sleeve, meant to add convexity in strong moves without taking outsized risk.

Performance in October–November 2025

From 1 October to 30 November 2025, Delta – Anchor Strategy delivered:

• October: ≈ +9.2%
  
• November: ≈ –8.0%
  
• Two-month total: ≈ +0.5%
  
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –13.6%

October was a good trend month for the strategy: it captured sizable moves and posted a strong positive return. November showed the other side of a classical trend follower: as conditions deteriorated, the system hit multiple stop-losses, giving back most of the prior gains and ending the two-month window almost flat.

Comparison vs Bitcoin and the Broader Crypto Market

As a benchmark, we look at Bitcoin and the broader crypto tape, since Delta Anchor trades crypto futures:

• Bitcoin returned about –3.9% in October 2025 and –17.5% in November 2025, for a total November drop of around –17–18%, one of its weakest months in years.
  
• Market commentary for November highlights altcoin stress and choppy conditions, with BTC dominance high, large drawdowns in many alts and poor liquidity.

Against that backdrop:

• In October, Delta Anchor strongly outperformed BTC, gaining ~9.2% in a month where Bitcoin was slightly negative.
  
• In November, the strategy lost ~8.0%, which is less than half of Bitcoin's ~17–18% drop, but the loss felt sharper because it followed a strong prior month and came via a sequence of stopped trends rather than one clean move.

Net over the two months, Delta Anchor ended slightly positive (~+0.5%), while BTC was down sharply, and many altcoins suffered even larger declines. For a no-leverage trend system, that's a respectable outcome in a very difficult tape.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ +0.5% two-month return and the October–November allocations:

• Conservative Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 5% weight
  
  • Approx. contribution: ≈ +0.0 percentage points (around +0.03pp, effectively flat at index level)
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    

So even though Delta Anchor experienced a double-digit swing inside the strategy, its effect on Balanced was almost neutral over the two months: a strong positive in October, mostly given back in November, resulting in a flat net impact.

6. Margin Syndicate

Role in the Indexes

Margin Syndicate is a high-risk, high-reward trading sleeve within the Z-Indexes. It trades with margin and accepts large standalone drawdowns in exchange for the possibility of strong upside in favourable conditions. In October–November, it was included only in:

• Balanced Growth: 4% allocation
  
• Conservative Growth: 0%
  
• Advanced Growth: 0%

Within Balanced, it is deliberately sized as a small satellite position: powerful enough to matter when it performs, but not large enough to dominate the index if it goes through a deep drawdown.

Performance in October–November 2025

From 1 October to 30 November 2025, Margin Syndicate delivered:

• October: ≈ +14.0%
  
• November: ≈ +4.6%
  
• Two-month total: ≈ +19.3%
  
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –40.4%

So over these two months, it was one of the strongest positive contributors at the strategy level, but it did so while carrying a very high risk budget, with intra-window equity swings exceeding 40% from peak to trough.

Comparison vs Bitcoin and the Broader Crypto Market

October–November 2025 were extremely challenging for crypto overall:

• Bitcoin finished October modestly negative, then fell by around 16–18% in November, marking one of its worst months in several years and extending a peak-to-trough drawdown of roughly 30–36% from the early-October highs.
  
• Many altcoins and higher-beta tokens dropped even more sharply, with widespread double-digit losses and heavy deleveraging across the market.

Against that backdrop, Margin Syndicate's +19.3% two-month gain stands out:

• It generated strong positive returns in October while BTC was already under pressure.
  
• It continued to make money in November, a month when most crypto strategies were struggling to avoid large losses.

The flip side is visible in the –40.4% max drawdown: the strategy travels on a much more volatile path than Bitcoin or most other sleeves. This is acceptable only because its weight inside the index is tightly controlled.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ +19.3% two-month return and October–November weights:

• Conservative Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 4% weight
  
  • Approximate contribution: ≈ +0.8 percentage points over the period
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points

In other words, Margin Syndicate was a small but clearly positive driver inside Balanced: in a two-month window where Bitcoin and much of the crypto market were deeply negative, this sleeve alone added close to +0.8% to the index, while the rest of its considerable volatility remained contained by its limited allocation.

7. Delta – Nexus Strategy

Role in the Indexes

Delta – Nexus Strategy is a ZIG-only spot trading algorithm on Bybit. All of its risk is concentrated in a single asset: ZIG, with entries and exits managed via stop-loss–based trading logic. That means:

• When ZIG trends cleanly, the strategy can compound gains.
  
• When ZIG sells off hard or chops with false breaks, it can hit sequences of stop-losses.

In October–November 2025, it was included only in:

• Balanced Growth: 4% allocation
  
• Conservative Growth: 0%
  
• Advanced Growth: 0%

So within the Z-Indexes, Delta Nexus was a small but focused ecosystem sleeve, giving Balanced an extra layer of ZIG exposure on top of The Zig Vault.

Performance in October–November 2025

From 1 October to 30 November 2025, Delta – Nexus Strategy delivered approximately:

• October: ≈ –5.4%
  
• November: ≈ –27.7%
  
• Two-month total: ≈ –31.6%
  
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –38.9%

The path is exactly what you'd expect from a ZIG-only trading system:

• In October, as ZIG started to weaken and volatility picked up, the strategy slipped into a moderate loss.
  
• In November, with ZIG continuing to fall and producing messy swings, the system went through a cluster of stop-losses, pushing the cumulative loss above –30% and driving a near –40% intra-window drawdown.

A sharp, persistent move against ZIG led to multiple SLs in sequence rather than a smooth equity curve.

Comparison vs ZIG Token

Because Delta Nexus trades only ZIG spot, the correct benchmark is the ZIG token itself. Over October and November, ZIG experienced a large double-digit drawdown from early-October levels to late-November lows—on the order of roughly half its value from peak to trough over that window.

Relative to that, the strategy's –31.6% over the two months reflects both the underlying token weakness and the additional drag from repeated stop-outs as it tried to trade through the downtrend.

So Delta Nexus behaved like a more active, risk-managed version of a ZIG spot position: still heavily exposed to the token's path, but with performance shaped by its trading rules rather than a single buy-and-hold entry.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ –31.6% two-month return and the October–November allocations:

• Conservative Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 4% weight
  
  • Approximate contribution: ≈ –1.3 percentage points over the period
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points

So in Balanced, Delta Nexus was a noticeable but contained detractor:

• A –31.6% strategy loss translated into roughly –1.3% at index level, one piece of the broader ZIG-related drag (together with The Zig Vault and the general weakness in the token).

Delta – Nexus Strategy behaved consistently with its design as a ZIG-only trading engine. As the token went through a sharp, extended decline, the algorithm hit several stop-losses in succession and finished the two months with a sizeable drawdown.

Thanks to its modest 4% weight, this pain remained visible but controlled inside the Balanced Z-Index, which is exactly why ecosystem-concentrated sleeves are sized conservatively in the overall portfolio.

8. AI Alpha Aggressive

Role in the Indexes

AI Alpha Aggressive – Futures is a high-leverage DCA algorithm that trades in both directions (long and short) with a hedge. When volatility is contained and two-sided, both legs can generate profits: shorts harvest downside swings, longs benefit from rebounds, and the strategy compounds nicely.

The weakness appears when there is a strong, one-directional move, like the crash around 10 October:

• All the shorts tend to close in profit,
• But the against-trend long DCA leg keeps adding exposure, which can drive a large drawdown before the system can normalize.

In October–November 2025, the allocations were:

• Balanced Growth: 4%
• Advanced Growth: 10%
• Conservative Growth: 0%

So this engine was designed to be a small but aggressive sleeve in Balanced, and a key high-octane component in Advanced.

Performance in October–November 2025

From 1 October to 30 November 2025, AI Alpha Aggressive delivered:

• October: ≈ –26.9%
• November: ≈ –12.7%
• Two-month total (Oct–Nov): ≈ –34.0%
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –44.4%

Most of the damage came in October, directly linked to the 10 October crash and the following days:

• The strong, one-way move meant that short legs exited with gains,
• But the long DCA leg against the new trend accumulated size, pushing the strategy deep into a drawdown.

November extended the pain with a further ~–12.7%, but the critical shock was October. Once the October episode hit, the strategy never fully recovered within this two-month window.

Comparison vs Bitcoin and the Crypto Market

The natural benchmark here is Bitcoin and the broader crypto tape, since AI Alpha trades leveraged futures on crypto assets.

From StatMuse's monthly data for 2025:

• Bitcoin October 2025: –3.95%
• Bitcoin November 2025: –17.07%

So over the same two months:

• BTC lost roughly –20% in a relatively "normal" spot path.
• AI Alpha Aggressive lost about –34%, with a –44% max drawdown, showing how a leveraged DCA + hedge structure magnifies path risk during violent one-way moves.

This is fully consistent with the design:

• In calm, mean-reverting volatility, the strategy can outperform spot because it harvests back-and-forth moves in both directions.
• In a single, sharp break like 10 October, the path dependency works against it: the hedge structure locks in profits on one side but builds exposure on the wrong side, leading to a deeper and more prolonged drawdown than a simple spot position.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ –34.0% two-month return and the October–November allocations:

• Conservative Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 4% weight
  
  • Approximate contribution: ≈ –1.4 percentage points over the period
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 10% weight
  
  • Approximate contribution: ≈ –3.4 percentage points over the period

This makes AI Alpha Aggressive one of the main detractors in the higher-risk indexes, especially in Advanced, where it explains a substantial portion of the ~–9.7% index loss in October–November (and a good share of its ~–16% max drawdown).

9. The Magnificent Seven

Role in the Indexes

The Magnificent Seven sleeve gives the Z-Indexes direct exposure to US mega-cap tech, behaving much more like a traditional equity portfolio than a crypto strategy. It's the bridge between the crypto/RWA engines and the Nasdaq/S&P universe, and its natural benchmarks are the Nasdaq 100 and the S&P 500, not Bitcoin.

In October–November 2025, it was included only in:

• Advanced Growth: 20% allocation
• Conservative Growth: 0%
• Balanced Growth: 0%

So within the Z-Indexes, it is a core equity block exclusively for Advanced, helping that index express a higher-risk profile while still anchoring part of the portfolio in established, listed companies.

Performance in October–November 2025

From 1 October to 30 November 2025, the Magnificent Seven sleeve delivered:

• October: ≈ +5.2%
• November: ≈ –1.6%
• Two-month total: ≈ +3.5%
• Max drawdown in the period: ≈ –26.6% (from the early-November peak to the mid-November trough)

The path is typical of a strong equity sector coming off a prior rally:

• October saw a continuation of the tech uptrend, with the basket gaining just over 5%.
• November included a mid-month sell-off and subsequent recovery, ending slightly negative for the month but still up solidly over the full two-month window.

Comparison vs Nasdaq and S&P 500

For this sleeve, the right comparison set is US large-cap equities, not crypto:

• The S&P 500 total return index gained about +2.34% in October and +0.25% in November, for a combined ≈ +2.6% over the two months.
• Market commentary for November notes that US equities had a volatile month but ultimately posted a small positive return, extending a multi-month winning streak.

Against that backdrop:

• The Magnificent Seven sleeve's ≈ +3.5% over October–November outpaced the S&P 500 by roughly 1 percentage point.
• Its pattern of strong October, mild giveback in November, is consistent with mega-cap tech leadership in a market that is still broadly constructive for US equities.

In short, within its risk bucket, the strategy behaved very much like a Nasdaq-heavy growth allocation, delivering a low single-digit positive return with equity-style volatility, and clearly decoupled from the heavy drawdowns seen in crypto over the same period.

Approximate Impact on each Z-Index

Using the ≈ +3.5% two-month return and October–November allocations:

• Conservative Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Balanced Growth – 0% weight
  
  • Contribution: 0.0 percentage points
    
    
• Advanced Growth – 20% weight
  
  • Approximate contribution: ≈ +0.7 percentage points over the period

So within Advanced, the Magnificent Seven sleeve was a clear positive contributor, adding around +0.7% in a window where several crypto-focused engines were under pressure.

Conclusion and December Rebalance

The October–November 2025 window was a useful real-life stress test for the Z-Indexes. It showed clearly where risk was coming from and which engines behaved as intended:

• The defensive sleeves: Falcon and BlackRock iShares did what they were supposed to do: small positive or mildly volatile returns that helped keep drawdowns well below Bitcoin's.
• The equity block: Magnificent Seven behaved like a Nasdaq-style growth allocation, adding a modest positive contribution in Advanced, while crypto was under pressure.
• The crypto beta and ZIG sleeves: The Zig Vault, Crypto Dividend Engine, and Delta Nexus were the main drivers of negative performance, as expected in a period where ZIG and the broader crypto market suffered large drawdowns.
• The aggressive trading engines, especially AI Alpha Aggressive, delivered the profile we knew they had: attractive upside in normal two-sided volatility, but significant drawdown when faced with a violent, one-directional move like the 10 October crash.

The outcome at the index level was as expected for this phase of the cycle, and we know the coming month will be better.

All three Z-Indexes stayed within their expected risk bands and, despite a difficult two months, remained in profit since launch as of 10 December. This experience also highlighted where we could improve the balance between structural yield, diversification and concentrated risk.

One of the key outcomes of this review was the decision to increase exposure to always-on yield and real-world income, including private credit added to Z-Indexes, as part of the December rebalance.

The December rebalance is designed around three simple principles:

1. Reduce the impact of any single asset or single engine on the portfolio.
2. Increase the share of "always-on" yield and real-world income (RWA / private credit).
3. Broaden the set of trading engines so that no single strategy dominates the P&L in stress events.

Below, we summarise how those principles translate into concrete changes in each Z-Index.

Conservative Growth – More Real-World Yield, Less Dependence on a Single Engine

Before (Oct–Nov)

• Falcon: 60%
• BlackRock iShares (gold): 25%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 5%

From December

• Falcon: 30%
• Abhi Private Credit: 30%
• BlackRock iShares: 25%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 2.5%
• Delta – Anchor Strategy: 2.5%

The Conservative Z-Index already passed the October–November test: it delivered a relatively small drawdown while still participating in growth. The main change here is not about "fixing" a problem, but about upgrading the engines behind the same risk profile.

• We reduce Falcon from 60% to 30% and introduce Abhi at 30%, creating a dual core of ultra-low volatility yield (Falcon) plus short-duration private credit via Abhi. This keeps the index conservative but makes its income less dependent on a single product and more grounded in real-world cash flows.
• We keep a strong gold allocation (25% BlackRock iShares) as a defensive macro hedge.
• We retain Zig exposure via The Zig Vault at 10%, but we halve the spot crypto beta of Crypto Dividend Engine from 5% to 2.5% and add a small 2.5% sleeve of Delta Anchor, an unlevered trend follower. This keeps some upside participation in crypto while limiting the impact of prolonged sideways or bearish phases.

Bottom Line for Conservative

The risk level remains similar, but the way it is taken is more diversified: less concentration in a single yield engine, more real-world income, and a smaller allocation to pure spot crypto.

Balanced Growth – More Drivers, Less Concentrated High-Octane Risk

Before (Oct–Nov)

• Falcon: 58%
• BlackRock iShares: 10%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Delta Anchor: 5%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 5%
• Margin Syndicate: 4%
• Delta Nexus: 4%
• AI Alpha Aggressive: 4%
  

From December

• Falcon: 29%
• Abhi: 29%
• BlackRock iShares: 10%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Delta Anchor: 5%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 5%
• Margin Syndicate: 3%
• Delta Nexus: 3%
• Volatility Pocket Grid: 2%
• Suisse Quant Group: 2%
• FX Flow Swing: 2%

Balanced is designed to sit between Conservative and Advanced in risk terms, and the October–November performance was consistent with that objective. The main lessons from that period were:

• AI Alpha Aggressive can be a very large drag in a crash scenario relative to its small weight.
• ZIG-related sleeves (The Zig Vault, Delta Nexus) and spot crypto beta hold a lot of path risk when the token and the market are both under pressure.

The December allocation responds directly to those observations:

• We remove AI Alpha Aggressive from Balanced, eliminating one of the most path-dependent, high-leverage sources of drawdown in this index.
• We cut Falcon from 58% to 29% and added Abhi at 29%, mirroring the Conservative structure but at a slightly higher overall risk level. This maintains a strong stabiliser/yield core while making the portfolio less reliant on one single low-volatility engine.
• We keep the core exposures that behaved well or played their intended role: gold (10%), Delta Anchor (5%), Crypto Dividend Engine (5%) and a modest allocation to Margin Syndicate and Delta Nexus, each reduced from 4% to 3% to limit their individual impact.
  
  
• We introduce three new trading sleeves, each at 2%:
  
  
  • Volatility Pocket Grid, focusing on extracting carry from controlled volatility in a single asset.
  • Suisse Quant Group, a systematic multi-asset strategy across FX/indices/commodities.
  • FX Flow Swing, a swing-trading engine in FX and macro assets.

These three are designed to be uncorrelated or only loosely correlated to pure crypto beta, adding more ways for Balanced to make money outside of the crypto/ZIG complex.

Bottom Line for Balanced

Risk remains clearly higher than Conservative, but is now spread across more independent engines, with less reliance on a single leveraged strategy or any one token. The goal is to keep the same risk band while improving the consistency of returns across different market regimes.

Advanced Growth – Keep the Growth Profile, but with Better Diversification

Before (Oct–Nov)

• Falcon: 40%
• Magnificent Seven: 20%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 20%
• AI Alpha Aggressive: 10%

From December

• Falcon: 20%
• Abhi: 23%
• Magnificent Seven: 20%
• The Zig Vault: 10%
• Crypto Dividend Engine: 7.5%
• Delta Anchor: 7.5%
• Volatility Pocket Grid: 4%
• Suisse Quant Group: 4%
• FX Flow Swing: 4%

Advanced is meant to be the highest-risk index, but "highest risk" does not have to mean "most concentrated". The October–November path showed that:

• A combination of large spot crypto beta (20% Crypto Dividend Engine) and a 10% allocation to AI Alpha Aggressive can dominate the downside when the market breaks in one direction.
• At the same time, the Magnificent Seven sleeve and Falcon were doing their job, but had limited ability to offset heavy crypto-specific shocks.

The December rebalance reshapes Advanced along three lines:

• We remove AI Alpha Aggressive entirely, reducing the tail risk associated with leveraged DCA in violent moves.
• We reduce Falcon from 40% to 20% and introduce Abhi at 23%, giving Advanced a sizeable allocation to real-world private credit income on top of a still meaningful stabiliser block. This keeps the index clearly more aggressive than Balanced, but with a larger share of its risk budget anchored in structural yield.
• We reduce Crypto Dividend Engine from 20% to 7.5% and introduce a matching 7.5% allocation to Delta Anchor, so that the "crypto trading" sleeve is split between spot beta and a no-leverage trend follower. This makes the crypto risk more balanced between direction and timing.
• Finally, we add 4% each to Volatility Pocket Grid, Suisse Quant Group and FX Flow Swing, echoing the design in Balanced but with slightly higher weights. Together with the existing Magnificent Seven 20% allocation, these engines ensure that a larger portion of Advanced's return can come from non-crypto and cross-asset opportunities.

Bottom Line for Advanced

It remains the Z-Index with the highest expected volatility and drawdown, but from December onwards, its risk is less concentrated in a handful of crypto-specific engines.

More of its profile now comes from a blend of real-world yield, tech equities, trend-following and cross-asset trading, making it better equipped to navigate both crypto bull phases and multi-asset environments where other risk premia lead.

Overall, the December changes are not a reactionary shift, but a logical evolution after a live stress test. The core philosophy of the Z-Indexes remains the same: diversified, professionally constructed portfolios that aim to offer a smoother path than a concentrated crypto allocation, while still participating meaningfully in growth.

The new mix of engines simply improves our ability to deliver that promise across different market regimes.

Disclaimer: Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. This does not constitute investment advice or a solicitation to invest. Availability of Z-Indexes may be subject to local laws and regulations. Users are responsible for ensuring compliance with their jurisdiction's requirements.