In traditional finance, custody is almost invisible.
A custodian bank can hold trillions of dollars in securities, ensuring that ownership records are accurate and assets cannot be misappropriated. These institutions are regulated, insured and audited.
The custody of cryptocurrencies traditionally takes place in a different universe.
In blockchain, owning digital assets means controlling a private key, or a long, unique string of numbers that allows its holder to move assets recorded on the blockchain. Lose that key and you lose the asset. No one can restore it; There is no forgot password button to click on blockchain networks.
For individual users, this is a stimulating but perilous process. For institutions managing billions of dollars, this can be a governance nightmare.
As are crypto companies welcomed more and more In the financial mainstream, as US regulation opens the door, the question of who holds the keys has become kicked off an arms race for charters and trust. Once the domain of traditional financial institutions, this rush for federal and state trust charters is now extending to crypto exchanges, stablecoin issuers and payment companies seeking to prove they can meet institutional standards.
Advertisement: Scroll to continue
Even traditional tech companies are getting into this space. IBM announced Monday (October 27) plans to launch a platform designed to provide police custody and transaction services for institutional clients by the end of 2025.
Taken together, these market movements indicate that cryptocurrency custody is becoming increasingly normalized. and no marginalized, never mind industry claims that “debanking.”
Read also: Custody remains a missing link in crypto’s mainstream breakthrough
Custody of Cryptocurrencies Becomes a Battleground for Legitimization
Blockchain technology is not a single invention but two distinct inventions. The first is the data structure, the immutable ledger of blockchain transactions, where each block of data is cryptographically linked to the one who precedes him. The second, and undoubtedly more important Throughout the financial sector, we find the trust model, or rather the elimination of the need to have one.
Before blockchain, the act of trust in the digital world always relied on intermediaries. Banks checked balances, governments issued currency, and auditors reconciled ledgers. Blockchain has reversed this logic. By distributing identical copies of a ledger to thousands of computers, there was no longer a need for a single trusted archivist. Instead, trust has become an emergent property of the system itself, reinforced by consensus, transparency, and calculation.
This new paradigm of trust has given birth to an entire industry. However, as the system has grown from a few thousand amateurs to a multi-billion dollar market, it has encountered the simple fact that the human and institutional world still needs guarding. Digital assets can live on a blockchain, but businesses, institutions and governments still need to decide who holds the keys.
The result to date of the cryptocurrency custody issue has been a bifurcation of the crypto landscape. On one side are self-custodians, or users and protocols who hold their own keys and trust the blockchain code. On the other hand, custody intermediaries, such as exchanges, wallet providers and regulated custodians, that reintroducing the very structures that blockchain was designed to circumvent. Ironically, many of the the biggest crypto players, Coinbase has Binancenow operate as centralized depositories in all but name.
Many crypto-native custodians also operate under a hybrid model. Assets remain on-chain, but access is managed through institutional-grade key management, multi-party computing (MPC), and compliance frameworks. Essentially, they provide a centralized layer of operational trust at the top a decentralized foundation.
See also: 4 Questions CFOs Need to Ask as Wall Street Embraces Stablecoins
The rush for charter and trust
Over the past year, as regulatory The United States’ posture has softened, demands for national trust charters accelerated, with some of the the biggest names in FinTech and crypto among the candidates. Companies with their own charters could offer integrated custody, payment and tokenization services without relying on third-party banks.
During the Federal ReserveIt is Payments Innovation Conference October 21, Fed Governor Christopher Waller advanced the notion of a “lean” or “streamlined” master account, a form of access to the Fed’s settlement system suited to non-bank payment businesses, including stable coin transmitters.
Under this proposal, businesses would have direct access to the Fed’s payment channels, subject to stricter conditions, including discount showcase borrowing, no interest on reserve balances, capped balances and restricted operational features. This access is limited to payment-centric activities, not full banking operations.
At the same time, stablecoin issuers as Circle Internet Group, Kraken, Bridge (Band), Ripple And more are races For federal trust or bank charters under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
A national trust charter allows companies to operate across state lines under a single regulatory regime, rather than maintaining dozens of separate licenses. Unlike full national bank charters, trust charters do not authorize the acceptance of deposits or loans, but they enable custody, fiduciary services and settlement, increasingly critical functions for digital asset businesses.
