Choosing a Digital Asset Custodian

Table of Contents

1. Where Strategy Holds Its Bitcoin

2. How to Evaluate a Custody Provider

3. Major International Custody Providers

4. Major Korean Custody Providers

5. Aligning the Custody Structure with the Intended Use of Assets

 

 

1. Where Strategy Holds Its Bitcoin

Strategy, which holds a substantial amount of Bitcoin, distributes its assets across several custodians. Of the 843,775 BTC it held as of July 24, 2026, 41.5% was with Coinbase Custody, 38.6% with Anchorage Digital, and 19.9% with Fidelity Digital Assets. Strategy uses multiple providers to reduce its exposure to any single custodian and has contractual arrangements that allow it to reallocate Bitcoin among them when necessary.

Even a company entrusting assets worth tens of trillions of won takes a diversified approach to selecting custodians. Strategy reviews each provider's operational capabilities, security controls, and regulatory status, then regularly reassesses its controls and risks after entering into an agreement. Alongside each custodian's ability to safeguard assets, it manages the potential impact on its overall holdings if one provider encounters problems.

Custody requirements vary with the purpose of an organization's holdings. For companies holding Bitcoin over the long term, asset segregation and reliable asset return are important. Institutions that also trade or stake need to connect their custody assets to those activities. Stablecoin and tokenized asset issuers must manage custody wallets alongside minting and burning permissions. Organizations operating in multiple countries also need to consider the contracting entity and service scope in each jurisdiction.

Selecting a custody provider begins with defining the assets and activities to be entrusted, then understanding how potential providers hold and manage those assets. This article sets out criteria for institutional custody selection and examines the services and business expansion of major international and Korean providers.

 

2. How to Evaluate a Custody Provider

Technology and security are among the most common considerations when selecting a custody provider. Wallet technologies such as multiparty computation (MPC) and hardware security modules (HSMs), and the ability to store assets securely, clearly matter. Assessing suitability also requires a broader review. A provider that cannot support the assets and activities a company needs is ineligible from the outset. Even a convenient service leaves a more fundamental risk if client assets are not clearly segregated from the custodian's own property.

Custodian selection can therefore be divided into two stages. First, companies screen providers for support for their required assets and activities. They then compare the shortlisted providers' custody structures, security frameworks, functionality, operational capabilities, and incident response. Sections 2-1 through 2-5 follow this general review process, beginning with the company's custody requirements and provider eligibility, then examining how to compare and evaluate the remaining candidates.

2-1. Defining Assets and Scope: What to Entrust and How Far to Delegate

A company selecting a custody provider must first decide which assets it will entrust. The candidates will differ depending on whether those assets are native assets such as BTC and ETH, stablecoins, or tokenized securities. Support for a blockchain does not necessarily extend to every token or smart contract function on that chain. Companies therefore need to verify support for the specific assets they intend to place in custody.

Companies working with real-world assets (RWAs) need to examine custody arrangements for both the underlying assets and the tokens. BlackRock's BUIDL, for example, tokenizes shares in a fund that invests in cash, short-term U.S. Treasury securities, repurchase agreements, and similar instruments. BNY provides custody of the fund's underlying assets and fund administration, while digital asset custodians such as Anchorage Digital support custody of the BUIDL tokens held by investors. Companies must distinguish the entity holding the underlying assets from the entity managing the tokens and establish how their rights are protected at each level.

Companies also need to define the activities they will delegate to the custodian. The scope may cover asset storage and transfers alone or extend to trading, staking, collateral arrangements, and off-exchange settlement. Stablecoin and RWA issuers must manage wallet signing permissions alongside token controls such as minting, burning, freezing, and upgrades. Issuers therefore need to decide how much authority to delegate to the custodian and how to connect those permissions to their internal approval processes.

2-2. Checking Eligibility and Coverage: Can the Provider Perform the Required Activities?

After screening candidates against the required assets and activities, companies should verify each custodian's regulatory authorization and the legal entity that will sign the contract. Global providers operate separate entities across jurisdictions, and custody, trading, and financing may be handled by different entities within the same group.

Common regulatory statuses include U.S. bank and trust company charters, New York's BitLicense, crypto-asset service provider (CASP) authorization under the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), and Singapore's Major Payment Institution (MPI) license. The powers they confer differ. New York's BitLicense permits virtual asset business activities but does not include the fiduciary powers granted to a limited purpose trust company. In Singapore, companies need to check both whether a provider holds an MPI license and which digital payment token services it is authorized to offer.

The applicable framework also depends on the legal nature of the assets. Companies using global providers must verify that the relevant authorization applies to the entity actually providing the service, since responsibilities can vary by jurisdiction and activity even within the same group. Evaluating a global custodian therefore requires verifying that the contracting entity can legally custody the required assets and provide activities such as trading and staking in the relevant jurisdiction. Its total number of licenses alone is insufficient.

2-3. Assessing the Custody Structure: Do the Assets Remain Ours?

Once a provider's eligibility is established, the next question is how the client's rights to the entrusted assets are maintained. Client assets should be clearly segregated from the custodian's own property, and their ownership must remain identifiable even in the event of an incident or insolvency.

Client holdings can be managed through dedicated or omnibus wallets. Dedicated wallets use a separate address for each client, allowing holdings to be distinguished on-chain. Omnibus wallets hold multiple clients' assets together, with each client's balance recorded in an internal ledger and regularly reconciled against the assets actually held. Under either model, the essential requirement is the ability to identify and return each client's assets accurately.

Suppose Client A places 10 BTC in custody and Client B places 20 BTC. With dedicated wallets, those amounts are held separately at each client's address. An omnibus wallet holds the combined 30 BTC at a shared address, while internal records separately attribute 10 BTC to A and 20 BTC to B. The total assets held are the same. The difference lies in how individual client holdings are identified and reconciled.

Wallet separation and legal asset segregation require distinct assessments. A dedicated wallet may provide insufficient protection if contractual ownership is unclear or client assets are exposed to the custodian's liabilities. Companies should also examine how client ownership is recognized and whether entrusted assets may be lent out or pledged against the custodian's own debts.

Where a provider delegates storage to a sub-custodian, the company also needs to identify the entity actually holding the assets. Key questions include whether asset segregation requirements extend to that sub-custodian and which entity is responsible for returning assets or paying compensation after an incident or contract termination.

2-4. Assessing Features and Operations: Can the Assets Be Used Safely as Intended?

Security technology should be assessed alongside actual operating procedures. Even with MPC, HSMs, multisignature technology, and cold wallets, concentrating transaction requests and approval authority in one person can leave a service vulnerable to internal incidents. Who approves asset movements, how keys and administrator permissions are protected, and how access is revoked when personnel change are as important as the underlying technology.

For frequent withdrawals, processing times and approval procedures must fit the company's funding schedule. A service may process routine withdrawals quickly but still have long contractual deadlines or limited access to approvals at night and on holidays. That can prevent assets from moving when needed. Time-sensitive activities such as issuance, redemption, and collateral transfers also warrant a review of how urgent requests are handled.

Another major consideration is how assets can be used while in custody. Beyond checking support for trading, staking, and collateral arrangements, companies should establish where assets move during each activity and who controls them. If assets are transferred to an external exchange or another service, the additional risks at that stage also need to be considered.

Depositing assets on an exchange moves trading funds into the exchange's wallet. Services such as BitGo's off-exchange settlement (OES) keep assets in a custody account while making the corresponding trading capacity available on a partner exchange. The institution executes orders on the exchange, and the custodian settles the resulting trades on the agreed terms. Even when the trading function is similar, the risks an institution must manage vary with the location of the assets and the collateral and settlement terms.

Accounting and internal administration features affect day-to-day operating workloads. Companies should assess how easily they can reconcile their own books with the custodian's balance and transaction records, whether audit materials and internal control reports are available, and whether APIs can connect the data to their existing systems.

2-5. Assessing Incident Response: How Will Service Recover, and Who Bears Losses?

Incident response requires separate assessments of service recovery and loss compensation. Companies should first verify whether recovery arrangements address system failures or the loss of some keys, and whether services can continue if a particular facility or member of staff becomes unavailable. They should also establish whether assets and necessary data can be transferred to another custodian if an outage persists.

When an incident results in actual asset losses, insurance terms become important. The review should cover insured events as well as the existence and size of coverage, whether multiple clients share one limit, and the applicable deductibles and exclusions.

The custodian's liability should be reviewed separately from insurance. Strategy's arrangements require custodians to return Bitcoin lost directly as a result of material contractual breaches, gross negligence, fraud, or similar misconduct. Protocol failures and incorrect client instructions are generally excluded. Companies need to understand how the cause of an incident determines who bears the loss.

A custodian's financial ability to meet its compensation obligations also matters. Companies should review the custodian's liability caps and financial condition to assess its ability to cover uninsured losses. If reliance on one provider is high, diversification across multiple custodians is another option.

 

3. Major International Custody Providers

Major global custody providers all serve institutional digital asset clients, but they differ in regulatory status, geographic coverage, storage models, and the trading, staking, and settlement functions connected to custody. The following comparison examines their authorizations and coverage, custody structures, features and operations, and incident response and loss compensation. Specific insurance coverage and exclusions, contractual liability, asset return in insolvency, and transfers after contract termination depend on the actual agreement.

3-1. Coinbase Custody

Coinbase is a U.S.-listed crypto exchange and digital asset infrastructure company that provides custody, trading, and financing through its institutional platform, Coinbase Prime. Prime Custody allows clients to access execution across multiple venues, trading credit, and asset lending intermediation while keeping assets within a qualified custody framework. Clients can also use Vault, a cold storage wallet with dedicated client addresses, in the same account to hold assets at separate addresses or stake supported assets. To trade assets held in Vault, clients must first transfer them to the default Prime Custody wallet in the same account.

Clients using Coinbase custody include Strategy, BlackRock's IBIT, Grayscale's GBTC, and Bitwise's BITB. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) also selected Coinbase Prime to custody and trade major digital assets seized or forfeited to the agency. Coinbase serves custody needs ranging from corporate Bitcoin holdings and the underlying assets of spot ETFs to digital assets managed by public agencies.

• Assets and Service Scope: Coinbase Prime supports custody and trading for hundreds of digital assets, with access to financing and staking. Prime Vault enables clients to hold assets and participate in staking through dedicated client addresses.
• Authorizations and Coverage: In the United States, Coinbase Custody Trust Company (CCTC), supervised by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), provides qualified custody. In the European Economic Area (EEA), Coinbase Luxembourg provides institutional custody and trading under its MiCA authorization from the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF).
• Custody Structure: Prime Custody uses an omnibus structure that pools multiple clients' assets on-chain, while distinguishing individual client rights through internal records and its legal structure. Prime Vault offers dedicated client addresses.
• Features and Operations: Smart order routing (SOR) executes orders using quotes from multiple exchanges and liquidity providers. Prime Custody gives clients access to trading liquidity across multiple markets and financing functions while assets remain with CCTC. Prime Vault provides dedicated addresses and staking. Trading requires assets to be transferred to the default Prime Custody wallet.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: Coinbase investigates security incidents and notifies clients of the incident and response measures when client information is affected. Its recovery arrangements include data backups across geographically distributed data centers and server failover for system outages. Insurance applies to online and offline assets held in Prime Custody, with compensation subject to covered events, limits, and exclusions.

3-2. Fidelity Digital Assets

Fidelity Digital Assets, an affiliate of U.S. financial services group Fidelity, provides institutional digital asset custody and trading. Institutions can trade on the platform using liquidity from multiple counterparties while keeping assets in cold storage, without moving them to an external exchange. Collateral accounts also connect custody assets to financing. It applies internal controls across storage and trading through multilevel approvals, geographically distributed storage facilities, and regular external audits.

Strategy and the Fidelity Ethereum Fund are among the clients using Fidelity Digital Assets custody. Its coverage spans corporate treasury assets and the underlying assets of investment products, from corporate Bitcoin holdings to Ether held by a Fidelity-affiliated fund.

• Assets and Service Scope: Fidelity Digital Assets provides digital asset custody and execution across multiple counterparties. Collateral accounts allow clients to obtain financing from external lenders against assets in custody. It also supports integrated custody and trading solutions for wealth managers and financial institutions.
• Authorizations and Coverage: In the United States, Fidelity Digital Assets, National Association provides custody and trading as a national trust bank chartered by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The UK's Fidelity Digital Assets, Ltd. is registered under the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) anti-money laundering framework and serves institutional clients in supported countries outside the United States. Availability varies by client location and service.
• Custody Structure: Omnibus wallets hold multiple clients' assets together, with individual holdings distinguished in internal records. Client assets are segregated from the company's own assets and managed through cold storage and geographically distributed facilities.
• Features and Operations: SOR executes orders using quotes from multiple counterparties, with real-time settlement of trades on the platform. Fidelity Digital Assets provides multilevel approvals and 24-hour institutional client support and undergoes annual SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 external audits.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: Trading and account access may be restricted when required for security, while business continuity and disaster recovery arrangements address service interruptions. Fidelity Digital Assets maintains insurance against theft and other risks affecting client assets in custody, with a shared limit across multiple clients. Compensation to clients depends on liability under the custody agreement.

3-3. Fireblocks

Fireblocks provides financial institutions and companies with digital asset wallets, transfer infrastructure, and permission controls. It offers Direct Custody, in which clients retain control of their assets, and Fireblocks Trust, in which a separate custody entity holds the assets. Institutions using Direct Custody can transfer assets, stake, access DeFi, and issue and manage tokens through their own wallets. Fireblocks Trust provides regulated custody, staking, and collateral management, while a single interface lets clients view assets held under both models.

Worldpay, Zerocap, and Bybit are among the users of Fireblocks' wallet, payment, and settlement infrastructure. The platform supports activities ranging from stablecoin payments to institutional trading asset management and off-exchange settlement. As of September 2026, at least 2,400 institutions and companies use its services.

• Assets and Service Scope: Direct Custody supports institutional wallet operations, digital asset transfers, staking, DeFi access, and token issuance and management. Fireblocks Trust directly custodies digital assets and provides staking and collateral-related services using assets in custody.
• Authorizations and Coverage: Fireblocks Trust Company, chartered by NYDFS as a limited purpose trust company, provides regulated custody in the United States. Direct Custody is wallet infrastructure used by institutional clients across the United States, Europe, Asia, and other regions, with clients retaining control of their assets.
• Custody Structure: Direct Custody uses client-specific keys and on-chain addresses, with MPC distributing signing authority. Fireblocks cannot move client assets on its own. Fireblocks Trust uses cold storage with offline signing and provides asset segregation and a structure intended to protect client assets if the custodian becomes insolvent.
• Features and Operations: The Policy Engine can permit or block transactions based on the user, asset, amount, and destination, and set the number of required approvers. The same policy framework can apply to transfers, staking, DeFi, smart contract execution, and token minting and burning.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: Direct Custody provides recovery mechanisms for lost key access and a backup package that allows clients to recover assets through an external wallet during a service interruption. It also connects clients to disaster recovery services from providers such as Coincover and Station70, with support depending on the selected configuration.

3-4. Anchorage Digital

Anchorage Digital is a financial infrastructure company providing institutional digital asset custody, trading, staking, and settlement. In the United States, custody and staking center on OCC-chartered Anchorage Digital Bank, while related affiliates provide access to trading, lending, and borrowing. Institutions can manage assets in custody accounts while participating in network governance or handling trade settlement and collateral. Its Singapore entity also offers custody, trading, staking, settlement, and fiat deposits and withdrawals.

Strategy and Ethena Labs are among Anchorage Digital's custody clients. Its assets in custody range from corporate Bitcoin holdings to BUIDL tokens serving as stablecoin reserves. Its collaboration with Ethena Labs also extends to USDtb issuance and collateral management for institutional lending.

• Assets and Service Scope: Alongside digital asset custody, Anchorage Digital supports staking, on-chain governance, trade settlement, and collateral management. Related affiliates provide trading, lending, and borrowing services. In Singapore, it also supports transfers between fiat currencies and digital assets.
• Authorizations and Coverage: Anchorage Digital Bank N.A., an OCC-chartered national trust bank, provides U.S. custody. Anchorage Digital Singapore holds an MPI license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), providing custody, trading, settlement, and related services to clients including overseas institutions. Availability depends on regulations in the client's home jurisdiction and the terms of each service.
• Custody Structure: Client assets are segregated from company property, with custody wallets and holding records maintained for each client. In Singapore, dedicated client wallets are the default. Omnibus wallets are used for some processes, including trade preparation, with internal records distinguishing each client's assets.
• Features and Operations: Clients can participate in staking and governance while assets remain in custody. Anchorage Digital offers biometric transaction approvals and 24-hour client support. Atlas supports simultaneous asset exchange when trade conditions are met, collateral pledging and release, and 24-hour fiat settlement within its network.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: Anchorage Digital accepts loss reports, investigates the cause of an incident, and compensates for asset losses for which it is responsible under the contract. U.S. custody assets have up to $100 million in insurance against theft, computer fraud, and related risks, with coverage shared across multiple clients.

3-5. BitGo

BitGo is a global digital asset infrastructure company providing institutions with custody, wallets, trading, lending, borrowing, staking, and settlement. It operates custody services through regulated entities in the United States, Europe, Singapore, Dubai, and other jurisdictions, connecting assets in custody to trading and collateral activities. Go Network handles transfers and trade settlement between custody accounts. Its off-exchange settlement function with partner exchanges allows institutions to trade on an exchange while keeping assets with the custodian.

Hedera and crypto exchange CoinJar are among BitGo's custody clients. BitGo supports institutional storage and operations, from holding Hedera's HBAR to managing and settling CoinJar's trading assets.

• Assets and Service Scope: Building on digital asset custody and wallet operations, BitGo provides trading, lending, borrowing, staking, and collateral management. It also supports delivery-versus-payment (DvP) settlement, which exchanges assets and payment simultaneously, OES, tokenized asset custody, and token management.
• Authorizations and Coverage: In the United States, custody is provided by BitGo Bank & Trust, an OCC-chartered national trust bank, and BitGo New York Trust, an NYDFS-chartered trust company. In the EU, BitGo Europe operates under MiCA authorization from Germany's BaFin. Its Singapore and Dubai entities hold a MAS MPI license and a VARA custody license, respectively. BitGo also provides custody in Switzerland under anti-money laundering rules and the VQF self-regulatory framework.
• Custody Structure: BitGo offers dedicated Custody Wallets for individual clients and Go Accounts connected to trading and settlement. Its regulated custody model segregates client assets from company property and is designed to protect them from general creditor claims if the company becomes insolvent. BitGo manages the custody wallet keys and uses cold storage.
• Features and Operations: Go Network supports 24-hour fiat and digital asset transfers between custody accounts and DvP settlement. OES connects trading and settlement on partner exchanges while assets remain with BitGo. Institutions can control asset movements through transaction limits, permitted addresses, and approval procedures.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: In regulated custody, BitGo manages all keys, including disaster recovery backup keys, and operates recovery plans using infrastructure across multiple locations. Wallets for which BitGo Bank & Trust holds all keys have an aggregate $250 million insurance limit against key theft, loss, and misuse. Self-custody wallets where the client or a third party holds some of the keys are excluded from this coverage.

 

4. Major Korean Custody Providers

Korean virtual asset custodians share operational and asset protection obligations under the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information and the Act on the Protection of Virtual Asset Users. They must have an accepted virtual asset service provider (VASP) registration covering custody and administration, obtain Information Security Management System (ISMS) certification, and maintain anti-money laundering systems. Client virtual assets must be segregated from company assets, and custodians must actually hold the same types and quantities of assets entrusted to them. At least 80% of the economic value of client virtual assets must be stored in cold wallets, and providers must obtain insurance or mutual aid coverage, or set aside reserves, against incidents.

Within this common legal framework, Korean custodians differentiate themselves through storage technology, key management, withdrawal approval procedures, insurance limits, and connected services. The following comparison covers Korea Digital Asset Custody (KDAC), Korea Digital Asset (KODA), BDACS, and BitGo Korea, examining their authorizations and coverage, custody structures, operational features, and incident response and loss compensation. It highlights differences in how they support institutional asset management and use, and in the protection their contracts provide.

4-1. Korea Digital Asset Custody (KDAC)

Korea Digital Asset Custody is a specialist custodian providing digital asset custody and related operational services to Korean institutions and corporations. It tailors its services to government and public agencies, funds, listed companies, other corporations, and token-issuing foundations, combining storage with management functions for each client category. Its services extend beyond custody to support fund net asset value (NAV) calculations, listed companies' accounting and disclosures, and token circulation management for issuing foundations.

Clients using KDAC custody include LG Electronics, SK Telecom, Nexon Korea, Netmarble, NXC, and SM Entertainment. It provides digital asset storage and management to companies across electronics, telecommunications, gaming, content, and other industries.

• Assets and Service Scope: KDAC supports storage, deposits, and withdrawals of assets on major networks including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Kaia, and Polygon. It also provides staking, trade settlement, and access to collateralized loans and asset lending and borrowing using assets in custody.
• Authorizations and Coverage: Korea Digital Asset Custody completed its VASP registration in 2021 and renewed it in 2025. Its registered activities cover virtual asset transfers, custody, and administration. It also holds ISMS certification and has completed SOC 1 Type 2 assurance.
• Custody Structure: Storage and signing use technology including air-gapped environments disconnected from the internet, HSMs, multisignature technology, and MPC. Fund clients can create and manage separate wallets for each fund, supporting asset management at the individual fund level.
• Features and Operations: KDAC supports staking through its own validator nodes and delegated staking. Trading services include over-the-counter block trades, escrow, and SOR for finding optimal prices and splitting orders. Depending on the client category, it supports fund NAV calculations and disclosures, listed company accounting, corporate balance and transaction record management, and token issuance and circulation management for foundations.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: KDAC restricts services or deposits and withdrawals during hacking incidents or system failures, announces emergency maintenance, and lifts restrictions once the cause has been resolved. At contract termination, assets are transferred to an external account or wallet whose ownership can be verified. Its insurance for incident-related losses totals $20 million.

4-2. Korea Digital Asset (KODA)

Korea Digital Asset is a specialist custodian providing digital asset custody, staking, and token management to Korean institutions and corporations. Its policy of holding all custody assets in cold wallets is complemented by permission controls and multiple approval steps tailored to corporate organizations. It also offers token circulation and lock-up management and certificate issuance for corporate asset administration.

Wemade and Wemade Tree are among the companies that have signed Bitcoin custody agreements with KODA. In the second half of 2024, its assets under custody totaled approximately KRW 1.3 trillion, accounting for 86.6% of the Korean custody market at that time.

• Assets and Service Scope: KODA supports custody of assets issued on at least 15 mainnets, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Base. In addition to storage, withdrawals, and staking, it manages the circulating supply of issued tokens and lock-up schedules for investment assets.
• Authorizations and Coverage: Korea Digital Asset provides custody to Korean institutional and corporate clients. It completed its VASP registration in 2021 and renewed it in 2025, with registered activities covering virtual asset transfers, custody, and administration. It also holds ISMS certification and has completed SOC 1 Type 2 assurance.
• Custody Structure: KODA stores 100% of custody assets in cold wallets physically disconnected from the internet. It uses MPC-based key management and multiple authentication steps, with backup key recovery mechanisms for lost keys.
• Features and Operations: KODA verifies withdrawal requests before transferring assets. Corporate clients can configure individual staff permissions and multilevel approval workflows. It supports one-time passwords (OTPs) and IP whitelists and issues certificates for legal, accounting, and tax purposes.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: KODA restricts withdrawals when it suspects fraudulent activity and provides backup key recovery mechanisms for lost keys. Insurance through KB Insurance has a $40 million limit, with compensation depending on covered events and exclusions.

4-3. BDACS

BDACS provides digital asset custody to Korean institutions and corporations and is expanding into staking, trading support, and tokenization infrastructure. Building on multichain custody, it has unveiled a prime custody solution for institutional asset management. It is also extending issuance and multichain operational infrastructure through its won-denominated stablecoin, KRW1.

Corporations in Korea, the United States, and Japan use BDACS custody. It supports storage of major virtual assets including Bitcoin, and its assets under custody exceeded KRW 80 billion as of March 2026.

• Assets and Service Scope: BDACS supports custody of at least 400 digital assets. It is also developing storage, issuance, and management infrastructure for tokenized securities and RWAs. This technical support is distinct from legal authorization to custody securities.
• Authorizations and Coverage: BDACS completed its VASP registration in 2024, covering virtual asset transfers, custody, and administration. It serves Korean institutional and corporate clients, holds ISMS certification, and has completed SOC 1 Type 2 assurance.
• Custody Structure: BDACS manages assets using institutional MPC wallets and cold wallets. It has announced the adoption of GK8 cold wallet and uMPC hot wallet technology to strengthen its platform's security, permission controls, and operational scalability.
• Features and Operations: BDACS supports multichain asset transfers and institutional staking. Its announced prime custody solution includes stablecoin access, transfers to trading venues, escrow, lending, and connections to OES. KRW1 also extends its infrastructure for stablecoin issuance and transfers between chains.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: BDACS may restrict login, deposits, or withdrawals following a financial incident and may act without prior notice in urgent cases. Its terms provide for external asset transfers before termination and liability for losses attributable to the company. It maintains asset insurance, but the public materials reviewed do not specify its coverage limit or detailed recovery procedures.

4-4. BitGo Korea

BitGo Korea is the Korean entity established by global digital asset infrastructure company BitGo to serve domestic institutions and corporations. It combines BitGo's technology and security infrastructure with Korean anti-money laundering and internal control systems. Hana Financial Group and SK Telecom are strategic shareholders. Having obtained VASP registration in August 2026, BitGo Korea is at an early stage of its Korean custody business and has no confirmed major custody clients yet.

• Assets and Service Scope: BitGo Korea provides virtual asset custody and transfers to financial institutions, asset managers, corporations, public agencies, and other clients. Its registered VASP activities include custody, administration, and transfers, as well as brokerage, intermediation, and agency services for virtual asset purchases, sales, and exchanges.
• Authorizations and Coverage: BitGo Korea's VASP registration was accepted by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) on August 18, 2026, and the entity contracts with clients and provides custody directly in Korea. Regulatory statuses held by global BitGo affiliates, including U.S. OCC national trust bank status, EU MiCA authorization, and Singapore MAS licensing, do not automatically apply to Korean contracts.
• Custody Structure: Korean law imposes requirements for client asset segregation, actual possession of custody assets, and cold wallet storage. The Korean entity has yet to disclose the details of its wallet configuration, key holders, and distribution of signing authority.
• Features and Operations: BitGo Korea launched its Korean services around institutional custody and asset transfers. Although brokerage of purchases, sales, and exchanges falls within its registered scope, it has not separately disclosed which specific trading products and global functions, including staking, Go Network, DvP, and OES, are available in Korea.
• Incident Response and Loss Compensation: BitGo Korea uses the global group's security infrastructure, but has yet to disclose detailed incident response and loss compensation arrangements for the Korean entity.

 

5. Aligning the Custody Structure with the Intended Use of Assets

Institutions should choose digital asset custody structures according to the nature and intended use of their assets and the applicable regulations. The providers discussed above differ in their custody authorizations, storage models, and support for trading, staking, and collateral use. Even within one provider, functions and protections vary by contracting entity and product. Institutions therefore need to establish, under the actual agreement, who controls the assets, which activities each entity performs, and how far its responsibility extends when an incident occurs.

For long-term holdings, key selection criteria include client asset segregation, withdrawal controls, key recovery, and asset return procedures. Frequent trading and collateral use make settlement speed, counterparty connectivity, approval procedures, and risk management during asset transfers equally important. Tokenized assets also require a clear allocation of roles among the entities holding the tokens, managing the underlying assets, and maintaining legal rights and ownership records. These differences may lead institutions to combine several custodians and technology providers according to their business objectives.

Combining custody with financial functions improves operating efficiency while making the allocation of responsibility more complex. A single platform may handle storage, trading, staking, and collateral use, yet the entity controlling the assets and the risks involved can change at each stage. This makes it essential to understand how far the protection of the original custody agreement extends when assets move to an exchange, a lending counterparty, or a smart contract. Alongside the breadth of supported assets and functions, institutional custodians will increasingly distinguish themselves through clear allocation of responsibility and the operational ability to return assets or transfer them to another provider during a service interruption.

International custodians are developing business models that connect trading, settlement, collateral, and token operations on the basis of their regulatory foundations and technical capabilities. Korean industry development and regulatory discussions should also clarify the roles and responsibilities of custodians, financial institutions, and technology providers throughout the institutional asset ownership and use cycle. Readers interested in exploring these changes and the potential of Korea's institutional digital asset market can follow the discussions at EastPoint 2026.