This table provides a comprehensive comparison of digital asset custody providers. These custodians maintain full control of clients' private keys/shares and assets, with clients initiating transactions that are signed and executed by the custodian. Many operate under specific regulatory frameworks and licenses, offering institutional-grade custody services with added controls around transaction authorization and key security, and enhanced compliance and oversight. Use this resource to evaluate custody solutions for institutional requirements.
Why Choose a Digital Asset Custodian?
Custodians offer institutional investors with secure infrastructure by taking full control of clients' private keys and assets, enabling controlled transaction workflows and key management. These providers hold licenses from regulatory bodies like the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), NYDFS (New York Department of Financial Services), and international regulators, adding protection to your digital assets under established financial frameworks.
Key Regulatory Licenses Compared:
- BitLicense (New York): BitGo, Anchorage Digital, Coinbase Custody
- MiCA Compliance (EU): BitGo, Crypto.com
- OCC Charter: Anchorage Digital (first federally chartered digital asset bank)
- VASP Licenses: BitGo, Crypto.com, Hex Trust, Zodia Custody
Company | Founded | Key Type | M of N Signing Policy | Policy Management Features | Blockchain Networks | Supported Tokens | DeFi Access | Exchange Integrations | Disaster Recovery | Off-Exchange Settlement | API Access | Certifications* | Licenses* | Insurance | Restricted Jurisdictions | Price Based On |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anchorage Digital | 2017 | HSM | Flexible (2/3 minimum) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | No | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2 | MPI, OCC Charter, BitLicense | ✓ | ? | AUC |
Aplo | 2019 | MPC | Flexible | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | 12 Exchanges | Internal | No | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2 | DASP | ✓ | USA, FATF | AUC/Volume |
BitGo | 2013 | Multi-Sig | Flexible (2/3) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | INX, Bitstamp, Finery Markets | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2 | MiCA, VQF, VASP, BitLicense, SD Custodian | ✓ | Sanctioned countries | AUC |
Cactus Custody | 2019 | HSM | Flexible | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Bitget | Internal | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, ISO 9001 | ? | ✓ | Iran, N. Korea, Russia, USA, Cuba, Syria | AUC |
Coinbase Custody | 2018 | MPC | ? | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | ✓ | ? | ? | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2 | BitLicense | ✓ | ? | ? |
Crypto.com | 2016 | MPC | ? | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | ✓ | ? | ? | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 1, SOC 2 Type 1 | MPI, MiCA, VASP, DCM, EMI, PSP | ✓ | ? | ? |
Hex Trust | 2018 | HSM | ? | ? | ? | ? | ✓ | ? | ? | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 1, SOC 2 Type 2 | MPI, VASP, DASP, TCSP | ✓ | ? | ? |
Liminal | 2021 | MPC, Multi-sig | 3/5 | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | No | ✓ | Internal | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | Sanctioned countries | AUC/Volume |
Prometheum | 2017 | Multi-sig, Multi-layer + HSM | Flexible (3/5 minimum) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | ETH (More coming) | ETH, ARB, GRT, UNI | No | No | Internal, External | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 1 & 2 | SPBD | ✓ | ? | AUC/Volume (Free with ATS) |
Tungsten | 2023 | MPC, HSM | Flexible | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | On Request | Internal, External | ✓ | On Request | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 | FSP | ✓ | ? | AUC/Volume |
Zodia Custody | 2018 | HSM, MPC | Flexible | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Deribit, Bitfinex, BYBIT, LMAX Digital | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 1, SOC 1 Type 2, ISO 27001 | TCSP, VASP | ✓ | ? | AUC/Volume |
? indicates information not yet available or confirmed
Note: This comparison focuses on custody providers operating under specific regulatory frameworks and is based on publicly available information, direct provider communications, and information provided by the service providers themselves. Regulatory status and licenses are subject to change. Always verify current regulatory standing directly with providers and relevant authorities. This information should not be relied upon as the sole basis for custody provider selection. Last updated: June 2024.