"risk-off" doesn't mean "zero-risk"
What does it mean then? Off has a meaning, and in this context it means zero. If something is on me, then I bear that burden. If it isn't on me, it is off me, and I don't bear that burden. It is a binary term, and if it doesn't mean zero, then it is deceptive.
There is no aspect of life that is without risk. Therefore it is necessary to act to mitigate risk in every endeavor.
Edit: I have literally been robbed of assets you describe above as risk-off. Therefore I know they are not without risk. Because of this experience, I will refrain from depending on assets that have unacceptable levels of risk that I can mitigate no other way. I literally do not put BTC into risk off assets. That is why I do not have any BTC, because I find the risk it will be stolen unacceptable to justify investment in it.
There are two kinds of cattle. There are the fat, happy cattle in the fields, that are pleased the farmer tends to them, feeds them, tenderly washes their teats for them, and keeps the wolves away. The cattle are happy that their beloved farmer secures them from every hazard and provides for their every need. They will all die when the farmer kills them. Note: the farmer kills them when they are at their peak condition, as fat and happy as they can be.
There is another kind of cattle, the Gaur, a wild cow in India that is a fearsome beast, the bulls standing ~2M at the shoulder. They live their lives foraging for food in the wild, constantly on a hair trigger and looking over their shoulders, ready to stampede to safety at a moment's notice, because there are tigers that will kill them and eat them if they are inattentive to their security. Eventually, the tigers kill them and eat them all, when they become old and sick. Note: the tigers can only kill and eat them when they are old and weak.
Choose your player.