A business can hold enough cryptoassets to cover its expenses yet still lack euros on payday. Between the balance displayed in a wallet, the price achieved on sale and the money credited to a bank account, several obstacles can arise. A stablecoin eliminates neither the risk of losing value nor the risk of a delayed conversion.
A treasury stress test makes these gaps visible. It does not try to predict the next crisis. Instead, it answers a practical question: which payments become impossible if several problems occur together? A spreadsheet is enough to get started, provided assumptions, calculations and decisions remain clearly separated.
Forecasting, stress testing and AI: three distinct roles
A forecast describes an expected path: likely receipts, planned expenses and the available balance at each date. A stress test deliberately imposes adverse conditions without claiming they will occur. AI assistance is a third consideration: it may help structure questions or explain differences, but it guarantees neither sound assumptions nor correct figures.
This distinction matters when assessing financial software. On https://www.numevia.io/, NUMEVIA advertises cash flow, profit and expense forecasting, alongside a conversational interface for financial analysis. That positioning does not demonstrate an ability to simulate a crypto crisis. Its terms describe the current build as a front-end demo and state that its outputs are not financial advice.
The method should therefore remain independent of the provider. AI can suggest risks to consider or rephrase a summary using fictional data; the finance lead must be able to reproduce every calculation without it. Support for wallets, on-chain data or depeg risk should never be inferred from a general forecasting claim.
Start by setting the test horizon. Weekly monitoring over thirteen weeks offers an operational view, but the days around payroll, taxes or a major repayment deserve daily detail. The right time interval reveals a liquidity shortfall rather than hiding it inside an average.
Identify euros actually available, beyond wallet balances
Your inventory must distinguish ownership of an asset from its availability for payment. For each bank account, platform or wallet, record the legal holder, asset, quantity, valuation date and route for conversion into euros. Add processing times, withdrawal limits, fees and access restrictions. An asset pledged as collateral or locked in a protocol cannot be treated like an accessible bank deposit.
For a stablecoin, identify its reference currency and the exit route actually available to the business. Holding a token does not necessarily mean you can redeem it directly with the issuer. Selling through a platform and redeeming with the issuer are separate routes with their own conditions. If the reference currency is the dollar, exchange-rate risk against the euro adds to depeg risk.
In the spreadsheet, distinguish three amounts: indicative market value, estimated net conversion proceeds and euros available before each payment deadline. A simple calculation multiplies the quantity by a prudent conversion price, then deducts estimated costs. However, those proceeds enter available cash only on the date they can plausibly reach the bank account.
- Available: funds usable before the deadline without an uncertain transaction.
- Accessible after a delay: assets convertible through a documented process and timetable.
- Unavailable in the scenario: assets whose exit is blocked or too late to meet the payment.
Avoid double counting: a transfer between two company wallets is not a receipt. Selling stablecoins converts an existing asset into euros; it does not create additional revenue. Nor should a certain payment obligation be offset against a customer receivable whose collection date remains uncertain.
Build three scenarios: lower receipts, a depeg and unavailable funds
Keep a baseline path for comparison, then create three variations: falling receipts, a stablecoin depeg and a temporary conversion blockage. Test them separately before combining them. For each shock, record its scale, duration and justification, such as a previously observed delay, dependence on one provider or a prudent assumption selected by management.
The ECB analysis Stablecoins’ role in crypto and beyond: functions, risks and policy examines depeg risks, reserve liquidity and redemption conditions. It helps explain why loss of value and conversion difficulties can reinforce one another. Published in 2022, it should not, however, be treated as a description of the current regulatory framework.
Consider a fictional example, excluding fees and exchange-rate movements to isolate the mechanisms. A business has €30,000 in the bank and stablecoins valued at €40,000. It expects €40,000 in receipts and must pay €60,000 over four weeks. If everything can be converted on time, its theoretical closing balance is €50,000: €30,000 + €40,000 + €40,000 − €60,000.
In the combined scenario, receipts fall to €20,000 and the conversion value of the stablecoins drops by 10%, to €36,000. The closing balance falls to €26,000. It remains positive, but that does not prove every bill can be paid. Suppose €35,000 is due in week one, receipts arrive in week four and the stablecoins are unavailable for two weeks: the business faces a €5,000 shortfall at the first deadline.
This temporary deficit is the test’s essential finding. When conversion becomes possible again, enter only the €36,000 received, on the assumed date; do not deduct the same haircut twice. In a real case, include fees, the gap between displayed and executed prices, any currency conversion and bank processing time. A liquidity shock is not simply a discount on an asset’s price.
Next, vary the parameters to identify the breaking point: how many days of blocked access would cause a missed payroll? What fall in receipts would exhaust the euro reserve? Without a validated probability model, these scenarios do not provide a probability of default. They reveal sensitivity and the conditions under which the plan stops working.
Check calculations and traceability before using financial AI
A usable test must be reproducible. Keep dated balance records, a payment calendar, price sources and an assumptions sheet separate from the results. Each version should identify who changed a parameter and who approved it. Check signs, currencies, units and the distinction between internal transfers and external receipts.
A provider’s stated transparency commitments also deserve practical examination. On https://www.numevia.io/about, NUMEVIA says users have access to information about AI usage, resource consumption and analytical results. This declared commitment is neither technical documentation nor proof of auditability. For a reproducible stress test, separately verify that assumptions are retained, data is dated, calculations can be checked and human approval is recorded.
Before experimenting, prepare fictional or effectively anonymised data. Replacing a customer’s name with a number does not guarantee anonymity if amounts, dates or a blockchain address can identify them. Never transmit private keys, recovery phrases or access secrets. Treasury balances can also be confidential without being personal data.
The French data protection authority’s guidance, Les questions-réponses de la CNIL sur l’utilisation d’un système d’IA générative, recommends limiting the personal data submitted, not sharing confidential information with public-facing services and checking outputs. Using an API does not remove the need to examine contractual safeguards, data retention and conditions for reuse.
A useful first trial is to ask AI to comment on a fictional scenario already calculated in a spreadsheet. Then compare its commentary with the figures: did it confuse the closing balance with the minimum cash balance? Did it invent a credit facility or overlook a delay? This checks a specific task without turning a persuasive response into evidence of general reliability.
Turn results into warning thresholds and a continuity plan
The main deliverable is not a reassuring chart but a list of actions triggered before euros run short. Track at least the lowest available cash balance, the first deficit date and the amount needed to cover priority payments. Set thresholds around the business’s deadlines and the time needed to act, rather than applying an arbitrary percentage.
In the example, the €5,000 shortfall requires a measure available before week one. An earlier conversion, an additional bank reserve or an already confirmed financing facility could be considered. An unapproved credit line or an unaccepted supplier payment extension, however, must not be recorded as a certain resource.
Assign an owner, a deadline and an alternative to each warning trigger. If one conversion channel becomes unavailable, the other must already have been checked: an operational account, adequate limits, authorised access and a known procedure. Two platforms may depend on the same stablecoin or banking route; their number alone does not guarantee effective diversification.
Finally, update the test after a material change: accepting a new asset for payment, greater concentration of receipts, revised withdrawal conditions or a major payment deadline. Regular reviews remain useful even without an incident. The aim is not to predict a crisis exactly, but to know which euros will be available, when and with what margin of uncertainty.
