TL;DR: The SEC has proposed a tailored custody framework for investment advisers and registered funds that handle crypto assets. The official source also identifies specific limits or future steps, so implementation and market impact should not be assumed.

The SEC has proposed a tailored custody framework for investment advisers and registered funds that handle crypto assets. For digital-asset markets, the important issue is less the announcement in isolation than the channel through which it could affect users, capital or network activity. The latest development deserves attention, but its relevance depends on the facts published by the organisation behind it and the work still required to make it matter.

What the primary announcement establishes

The proposal was published October 1 under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act frameworks. It would address the custody of crypto assets while modifying requirements involving adviser audits and broker-dealer custodial services.

The SEC says the proposed approach could permit self-custody in specified circumstances and use of state trust companies as custodians. The agency set a public comment period of 60 days after publication in the Federal Register; the changes have not been finalised.

Why this could matter for crypto markets

The difficult issue in institutional crypto is often not whether someone can hold a private key, but how an adviser proves control, segregation and responsibility to clients and regulators. A tailored framework may offer new options for legally supervised access, yet each option carries different custody, governance and cyber risks. Consultation is where those trade-offs need to be tested.

Regulation can change the economics of a product without changing a line of smart-contract code. Authorisation, reserve custody, supervisory reporting and customer eligibility can determine where a digital asset is available and which institutions may handle it. That distinction matters to investors trying to separate a plausible structural change from a headline that may not immediately move price or onchain activity.

The limits of the headline

This is a proposal, not a currently effective blanket permission for every registered fund or adviser to self-custody assets. The details and final scope may change after public feedback.

Regulated access is not the same as an investment recommendation. Even a service supervised by a public agency can face market risk, operational failures, changing prices or limitations on the protections available to holders.

The wider context

SEC proposed crypto custody framework sits within a wider shift toward fund custody. This area has a recurring challenge: the benefits are easiest to describe before the operational details are complete. Different stakeholders measure success differently. A user wants clarity and predictable access; an operator wants reliable controls and manageable costs; an institution wants accountability if something fails. Those perspectives can be in tension, and the source announcement should be read with that in mind.

The distinction also shapes how to read future updates. A new partnership, proposal or software version is a verifiable milestone. Adoption, consistent performance and financial effects require additional evidence. That is why follow-up reporting should distinguish released features, planned features and measured use rather than combining them into one claim.

What to watch next

Watch for comment submissions, revisions, the final rulemaking timetable and how custodians adapt service models if the proposal progresses.

The important question for firms is how a rule translates into actual procedures. Written compliance policies, customer disclosure, testing and ongoing reporting often prove more consequential than the headline date of an announcement. The next evidence should come from official implementation updates and measurable outcomes, not from assuming that a news release guarantees adoption or a token-price response.

Primary source: SEC proposed crypto custody framework (published 2026-10-01).

This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Bitcoin Magazine

Centralized Exchange and DeFi Losses Dominate 2026 Crypto Hacks Despite Hardware Wallet Failures

Crypto hacks have produced roughly $2.35 billion in net losses so far in 2026 after freezes and returns, according to a report by Lightning.news shared with Bitcoin Magazine. A security researcher by the name of Stacy Muur posted on X compiled “a list of protocols that were hacked for more than $50,000 in 2026.” 230 protocols year-to-date. “Crypto security is absolutely cooked.” September alone accounted for about $768 million in Muur’s tally, driven mainly by centralized exchanges and DeFi rather than pure Bitcoin self-custody hardware wallets, which got significant news coverage at the time.

The largest single loss was Bitget’s September 24 drain of roughly $387.5 million from hot and warm wallets. The exchange and firms including Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs have linked the incident to North Korea, citing IP patterns consistent with prior DPRK-linked VPN use, on-chain overlaps with wallets tied to earlier Lazarus Group and TraderTraitor activity, including the 2025 Bybit theft. Attackers used third-party security products to inject fraudulent withdrawal commands without taking private keys.

Liquid Network, Blockstream’s Bitcoin sidechain, took the next-largest hit when attackers exploited an Elements software bug in early September to mint about 4,000 unbacked L-BTC and peg them out for roughly 4,000 real bitcoins, valued near $320 million at the time. The self-described white-hat actors returned 3,400 BTC after negotiations conducted on-chain via OP_RETURN messages and kept about 600 BTC. No federation keys were compromised. The loss came from a type of inflation bug on the Liquid network protocol. 

Samson Mow later called the episode part of an “avalanche of AI-assisted attacks” that had already reached other Bitcoin-adjacent software before hitting Liquid. The network is back and running now, having covered the losses, presumably from investors. 

DeFi platforms showed the same pattern of concentrated, high-value losses. Drift Protocol lost approximately $285–296 million in an April governance and multisig compromise that involved months of social engineering. An investigation commissioned by the project attributed the operation to North Korean actors. 

KelpDAO’s LayerZero-powered rsETH bridge was drained of roughly $292 million in unbacked tokens after a single-verifier design was subverted. LayerZero stated that preliminary indicators pointed to DPRK’s Lazarus Group, specifically TraderTraitor. 

Tectonic on Cronos saw about $120.4 million borrowed against manipulated collateral in late August. Validators later rewound the chain and recovered the majority, though several million dollars that had already been bridged off-network were not restored.

Incidents involving Bitcoin hardware wallets were smaller in aggregate despite the wide news coverage. Galaxy Research placed the Coinkite RNG hack values in the range of roughly 1,596–1,789 BTC, on the order of $100–130 million, with higher upper-bound estimates near 2,055 BTC. 

Ledger losses of roughly $86–102 million traced to devices sold through the authorized Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis, where an unauthorized hardware implant captured recovery phrases during setup, a supply chain attack. The company stated that confirmed cases were limited to that reseller’s supply chain and that its own systems and direct sales were unaffected, though there are unconfirmed reports of such bugged devices making it to German markets. Combined, however, these hardware-adjacent events remain well below the single largest CEX and DeFi incidents. 

The year has also coincided with the practical deployment of AI coding agents capable of scanning codebases for vulnerabilities and automating exploit development. Muur has stated that “AI is definitely making it much easier to find and exploit bugs. I think we’re entering a pretty serious cybersecurity arms race.” 

Reports note that code-flaw exploits accelerated after the February release of models such as GPT-5.3-Codex and Claude Opus 4.6, which showed high success rates on smart-contract bug benchmarks at low cost. 

OpenAI has disclosed internal testing cases in which agents accessed unauthorized test-network funds or bypassed controls to complete tasks. Most of the year’s largest heists still relied on traditional vectors such as key compromise, social engineering, and infrastructure flaws, but the lowered barrier for discovering and weaponizing bugs adds a new layer of risk, particularly for complex smart-contract systems and sidechains.

Bitcoin’s base layer itself has not been the source of these losses. The bulk of the 2026 damage has concentrated in CEX hot-wallet infrastructure, DeFi governance, oracle designs, and Bitcoin sidechain code, while pure self-custody hardware wallets, even when imperfect, have accounted for a distinctly smaller share. Nevertheless, calls for an update to self custody recommendations have emerged from industry leaders, pushing forward multivendor multisig wallets as the future of niche industry.

This post Centralized Exchange and DeFi Losses Dominate 2026 Crypto Hacks Despite Hardware Wallet Failures first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Google Debuting a Bank-Grade Crypto Custody Tool Built on Split Keys: Report

Google is reportedly unveiling Google Multi-Party Compute, a crypto custody system that splits signing keys across separate systems, at its first digital assets symposium in New York today. The product is in private preview with several financial institutions. Alphabet has started using it to secure its own assets, according to CoinDesk reporting.

Google plans commercial availability in early 2027 and has not disclosed pricing.

The system applies multi-party computation to a signing key. The key is divided into fragments held by separate parties or machines, and a transaction requires a set number of fragments to sign. 

The full key is never assembled in one place. A bank could hold one share on its own hardware, another in Google Cloud, and a third with a rival cloud provider. Institutions can set thresholds such as two-of-three or five-of-seven. Before any signature, a policy engine running inside Google’s Confidential Space checks the transfer against limits, destination restrictions, and approval rules. 

Google says it has no access to key shares in unencrypted form, per CoinDesk.

Crypto’s security issues

The pitch rests on a persistent problem. Chainalysis attributed 43.8% of cryptocurrency stolen in 2024 to compromised private keys. DeFiLlama data shows roughly 40% of the $16.69 billion lost to hacks through June came from key compromises. In June, an attacker took seven keys from one developer’s computer during the Humanity Protocol breach and drained wallets across two networks. 

Such incidents show how concentrated signing authority creates a single point of failure. The industry has responded by recommending multi-vendor multisignature setups that spread control across hardware and software providers.

Google also frames the product against AI-enabled fraud. Chainalysis found that scams linked to AI tool vendors averaged $3.2 million per operation in 2025, compared with $719,000 for other scams. The report links the two figures but does not prove that AI caused the difference. 

Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has warned that AI could eventually find mathematical shortcuts that weaken wallet signatures. No AI system has shown that capability. Google’s MPC design targets stolen credentials and unauthorized transfers, not a break in the underlying cryptography.

Quantum computing presents a separate, longer-term risk. Google researchers estimated that a sufficiently powerful future machine could derive a bitcoin private key from an exposed public key in about nine minutes. Roughly 6.9 million bitcoin have exposed public keys. Google says its architecture can adopt post-quantum signatures later without forcing institutions to rebuild their systems, but it has set no timetable. Background on how quantum machines threaten bitcoin explains which addresses are most exposed.

Google enters a market led by Fireblocks, Fordefi, and BitGo. Google argued to CoinDesk that its banking relationships and security expertise give it an advantage. It also positions itself as a neutral supplier for banks that do not want to rely on competitors. 

Banks already use specialized platforms, such as BNP Paribas’s custody work with Metaco, and multi-institution vaults built with BitGo.

This post Google Debuting a Bank-Grade Crypto Custody Tool Built on Split Keys: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Circle has reported 30% growth in USDC assets under custody on Kraken since their September 2025 partnership, alongside nearly 1 billion EURC traded on the exchange since listing. Circle, in an Oct. 28 post presenting its Kraken case study, said…

Google is testing a crypto custody security system for banks, using multi-party computation to protect private keys and authorize institutional transfers.

TL;DR: Standard Chartered now supports eligible institutional RLUSD custody through its DIFC branch; a separate LMAX collateral arrangement is planned.

The difference between holding a stablecoin and using it as trading collateral is the centre of a new Standard Chartered arrangement. The bank said on October 12 that institutional custody for Ripple USD on the XRP Ledger is live through its DIFC branch, which is regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority.

Alongside that service, Standard Chartered is working with Ripple and LMAX Group on a collateral model. The proposed arrangement would allow the value of eligible RLUSD holdings to be mirrored to a trading venue without sending the underlying tokens there directly. In principle, that reduces the need to move assets between custodians and venues every time trading capacity changes.

The distinction in timing matters. Custody has launched for eligible clients; the expanded collateral integration remains subject to documentation, testing, approvals and jurisdictional conditions. Reporting the entire plan as live would overstate the announcement.

For the institutional stablecoin market, the concept is more consequential than a new exchange listing. Collateral mobility, exposure to counterparties and operational control determine whether large trading firms use digital dollars at scale. A stablecoin’s appeal depends as much on where it can be safely held and pledged as on the speed at which it can be transferred.

More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories

TL;DR: A BCG report commissioned by Ripple says custody buyers increasingly judge governance, interoperability and operational integration alongside asset security.

Institutional custody is becoming a question of how assets can be used, not just where keys are stored. Ripple’s October 21 discussion of a Boston Consulting Group research report argues that security is now a baseline requirement for banks and investment firms evaluating digital asset providers.

The report highlights policy controls, interoperability and the ability to connect custody with settlement, payments and treasury systems. BCG estimates that more than 30% of digital assets outside centralised exchanges are held through institutional custody models. That is an estimate from the commissioned research, rather than a directly observed count of every wallet in the market.

The shift matters for stablecoins and tokenised securities. Institutions may be comfortable with a technically secure wallet yet unable to deploy an asset if approval procedures, reporting or compatibility with existing systems are missing. Some firms could choose multiple custodians behind a shared orchestration layer; others may prefer integrated services.

Ripple sells custody infrastructure, so its framing is commercially interested and should be read as such. Nevertheless, the underlying question is pertinent across the industry. The winning custody model may be the one that makes conventional institutional controls possible without taking away the settlement advantages that attracted the bank to blockchain in the first place.

More from NewsBTC: Cryptocurrency news · Ethereum coverage · Crypto research and categories

Chainlink has introduced CustodySync with Anchorage Digital Bank as its launch partner, giving institutions a way to borrow from decentralized lending markets against assets held in qualified custody. Chainlink said in its Oct. 26 announcement that CustodySync connects custodians’ collateral…

Bitcoin Magazine

Blink Wallet Adds Inactivity Fee to Custodial Accounts, Accelerating Migration to Self Custody

Blink Wallet announced a new $1 a month inactivity fee, aimed at custodial accounts that have not logged in to the app in over 12 months. 

The decision was put into motion in early September via a Terms of Service change, with push notifications sent out to inactive users, and the first charge made by mid-October. Fees charged will be refunded if users log back in within 12 months, according to a blog post published by the company. 

The fee, which only affects custodial accounts, serves to relieve the burden of inactive accounts on the startup. According to the announcement, these inactive accounts have ongoing costs such as “ledger and infrastructure, retention of verification records, compliance monitoring and reporting, and support claims.” These costs are in turn borne by active user accounts via normal in-app transaction fees. 

A source familiar with the matter told Bitcoin Magazine that around a hundred thousand such accounts fit the inactive category at the time of the first fee charge, with an aggregate balance of over $800,000. The first fee pulled in about $45,000, mostly from accounts that had dust amounts of bitcoin inactive for over a year. None of these figures could be independently verified. 

A Bit of History

Blink Wallet may be one of the most popular Bitcoin wallets in the world, favored by advocates of Bitcoin Circular Economies across Latin America and Africa. Designed for an audience not already familiar with Bitcoin, the wallet first came to prominence as the ‘Bitcoin Beach Wallet’. It grew out of El Salvador’s initial wave of Bitcoin adoption, choosing design principles similar to Wallet of Satoshi, which had seen viral success in earlier years. The wallet was initially custodial and oriented around fast Lightning payments, with the innovative option of hedging value in USD via the Stable Sats feature.

Historically, custodial wallets have seen accelerated early growth compared to their non-custodial counterparts. It is arguably due to the friction introduced by non-custodial setup steps like the 12-word backup, but also by the lack of key material under the company’s control, which enabled features like the first generation of Stable Sats in the first place.

Because of the smooth interface and user experience Blink offered, it quickly became a favorite for evangelists to recommend. One particular evangelist allegedly got everyone he met to download the app and gave them about $1 worth of bitcoin. Some of those new users might have stuck around. But events like today’s Blink announcement put into question the effectiveness of such evangelism strategies, given that they may just be turned into dormant dust accounts. 

Blink was eventually spun off from Galoy Inc its founding firm, to be run by Lukas Duczko and a new board of directors. The announcement published in October 2024 stated that Duczko now had a controlling stake in the company, while Galoy continued to be a service provider and minority stakeholder. The Bitcoin Beach Fund was also established at the time, seeded with Blink shares as part of the transaction. The wallet once headquartered in El Salvador is now based in the free economic zone of Roatán, Honduras, though it maintains corporate entities in El Salvador and the United States.

Headwinds

Despite its success gaining international adoption among Bitcoin circular economies, evangelists and supporters of the Lightning Network, the company has also faced significant headwinds. And not just Blink but custodial wallets in general, like Wallet of Satoshi, Alby, and Blue Wallet, all phased out their custodial wallet offerings in recent years, pivoting to self custody infrastructure like Spark. The tide began to rise with the EU’s MiCA regulations, which sought licensing and KYC compliance standards from custodians that these wallets simply could not provide. 

On the U.S. side of the pond, the Samourai Wallet case and the broader war on crypto by the Biden administration pushed wallet operators outside of the country, with notable examples like Phoenix Wallet, Wallet of Satoshi, Wasabi Wallet, and Blink, limiting or altogether exiting American app stores. The legal uncertainty took place under the shadow of the Samourai Wallet and Tornado Cash cases, which the industry read as threats to user privacy and certainly to self custody wallets, let alone custodial ones. 

Fast forward a couple of years and Google Play decided to enforce EU and American laws by limiting Play Store distribution of wallets or exchange apps that do not hold licenses in corresponding jurisdictions. The viral nature and stunningly easy-to-use apps that were possible thanks to custodial Lightning had, in a matter of 2 years, become a liability. It was time to pivot to self custody. 

Nobody Said it was Easy

By 2025, Blink’s counterparts already offered self custody options; WOS was beginning to push their Spark-powered wallet, with 2027 as the deadline for custody wallet users to migrate. Alby had shipped a feature to connect self-hosted Lightning nodes to its hub and shut down its custodial Lightning option. Blue wallet had long ago shut down its custodial offer and had since doubled down on becoming an onchain wallet for new and power users alike.

Unlike its competitors, however, Blink’s biggest differentiator is the Stable Sats feature, which likely required a significant redesign to fit the limitations of self custody. It wasn’t until June 2026 that Blink launched its Spark supported self custodial wallet, a big move and one that its user base is still adapting to. 

To make things worse, on September 19th, hackers managed to withdraw 6.61 bitcoins from custodial wallet users via compromised admin tools. The company’s backers quickly announced they would make the affected users whole, and the bleeding was stopped, but the blow nevertheless must have shaken the company. 

Remarkably, despite some of the most difficult years for the Bitcoin wallet industry, Blink wallet has so far not just survived but stayed in the game. It has retained the slick design that made it so popular, while delivering advanced features that users in developing nations need, such as dollar-denominated value at the speed of lightning, meanwhile pivoting to self custody. The inactivity fee is but an inevitable step further down that transition. Perhaps having teams like Blink’s working on self custody will yield a new crop of sovereign technologies, its fruits badly needed by a sector of the industry battered by regulators and now AI cyber threats. 

This post Blink Wallet Adds Inactivity Fee to Custodial Accounts, Accelerating Migration to Self Custody first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

TL;DR: A BCG study commissioned by Ripple argues that banks’ custody choices shape the digital asset services they can offer. Its modeled earnings opportunity is an illustration, while the report’s adoption estimate excludes assets on centralized exchanges.

For a bank planning to move into digital assets, the custody decision can determine which products it is able to build.

That is the argument in research announced by Boston Consulting Group on October 22. The study, commissioned by Ripple, estimates that more than 30% of digital assets outside centralized exchanges are held through institutional custody models.

The exclusion matters: the figure is not a claim that institutions hold 30% of the entire crypto market through third-party custodians. BCG’s category also includes enterprise self-custody and wallet-as-a-service arrangements, which involve different degrees of control and outsourcing.

The Choice Goes Beyond Who Holds The Keys

BCG identifies several custody models and argues that banks may need a combination, depending on the services they intend to offer. The research emphasizes governance, integration and the ability to work across providers.

In Ripple’s account of the findings, large banks are increasingly licensing self-custody technology and building client products on top, while wallet-as-a-service is gaining traction among payment and retail fintechs. The company also highlights demand for common controls across multiple custodians.

That helps explain why custody is a product-design decision as well as a security decision. Holding assets for long periods is a different workflow from moving collateral between venues or settling a stream of payments. The same key-management technology can support either, but approval policies and operational processes will differ.

Consider a bank using a stablecoin for payments. A secure signing system still needs to establish who is allowed to instruct a payment, how limits apply and what happens when instructions conflict. Security at the cryptographic level cannot, by itself, answer those business questions.

A Business-Case Estimate With Clear Limits

BCG’s illustrative analysis suggests a regional bank with $200 billion to $300 billion in assets could generate $80 million to $100 million in profit-and-loss upside by combining custody choices with five digital asset use cases. That is a modeled opportunity, not reported earnings or a forecast that every comparable bank will achieve it.

The sponsorship also belongs in the picture. Ripple sells custody infrastructure and commissioned the work. The report can offer a useful framework while still reflecting a commercial interest in expanding the market.

There is an established supervisory backdrop. In a July 2025 joint statement, US banking regulators reminded banks that crypto safekeeping must meet existing safety, soundness and legal requirements. They said the statement created no new supervisory expectations.

For banks considering tokenized assets, the practical question is therefore which controls, integrations and liabilities accompany the proposed revenue. The strongest business case would show how a specific service earns money after its operating costs and risks, rather than relying on an industry-wide adoption number.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: AnchorWatch has opened its Nevada-chartered Bitcoin custody service, pairing a choice of key-control structures with optional Lloyd’s-backed insurance.

Bitcoin custody is no longer just a question of who holds the private keys. For professional trustees, company treasuries and advisers, it also involves governance, recoverability and what happens if assets are lost through theft or coercion.

AnchorWatch Trust Company has entered that market as a Nevada-chartered qualified custodian. The company is offering a model in which it controls the keys required for custody while clients can retain additional signing authority, alongside a second arrangement distributing key control among AnchorWatch, BitGo and CoinCorner.

The firm says eligible customers can apply for insurance backed by Lloyd’s of London syndicates. Its launch announcement described a possible limit of up to $370 million per client, although coverage depends on underwriting approval and the terms of an individual policy. This is not blanket protection automatically attached to every Bitcoin in custody.

Pricing is also part of its pitch. AnchorWatch is positioning fixed-dollar custody charges, with a monthly ceiling of $10,000, against the percentage-based pricing common across institutional asset services. Insurance costs are separate.

The structure is aimed at customers who want the controls of regulated custody without concentrating every signing decision in a single institution.

Ultimately, the value of any such product depends on the actual key arrangements, policy exclusions, service reliability and how clearly clients understand the risks that remain uninsured.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Bitcoin Magazine

Standard Chartered Signs Agreement To Acquire Crypto Custodian Zodia Custody

British multinational Standard Chartered will buy digital asset custodian Zodia Custody, months after signing an agreement. 

A statement from London-based Zodia Custody on Wednesday said that the deal will see the company’s service integrated into Standard Chartered’s existing digital asset custody activities. 

Standard Chartered is expanding its crypto-related offerings worldwide. Earlier this month, it said it had plans to offer crypto custody services for institutional clients in Singapore. It already offers the service in the UAE, Luxembourg, and Hong Kong. 

“As institutional adoption of digital assets accelerates, custody is increasingly becoming part of the global banking landscape,” Zodia Custody CEO Richard Clark said. 

He added: “Zodia Custody has built a strong business with the specialist expertise and capabilities to meet the needs of institutional clients. 

“Bringing that expertise together with Standard Chartered’s global reach and established banking platform will strengthen its digital asset custody offering and provide institutions with greater access to trusted, regulated custody services worldwide.”

Ying Ying Tan, global head of securities services and digital assets at Standard Chartered, added that the deal “further deepens our digital asset custody portfolio and reinforces our position as a leading provider of digital asset services globally.”

Zodia Custody shareholders in May approved Standard Chartered’s offer to buy the company. 

The company works to custody bitcoin and other digital assets for institutional and asset managers. 

Standard Chartered has delved deeper into the crypto space in recent years. In 2025, the bank set up a trading desk for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in London, making it one of the first global banks to enter spot cryptocurrency trading.

It has since debuted custody and trading services in countries around the world. 

Top banks worldwide are debuting or planning to debut crypto custody services, with State Street, Standard Chartered, U.S. Bank, and Citigroup all committing to direct crypto custody over the past 18 months.

Crypto custody is often a starting point for banks moving into the digital asset space. BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services.   

This post Standard Chartered Signs Agreement To Acquire Crypto Custodian Zodia Custody first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

TL;DR: AnchorWatch has opened its Nevada-chartered Bitcoin custody service, pairing a choice of key-control structures with optional Lloyd’s-backed insurance.

Bitcoin custody is no longer just a question of who holds the private keys. For professional trustees, company treasuries and advisers, it also involves governance, recoverability and what happens if assets are lost through theft or coercion.

AnchorWatch Trust Company has entered that market as a Nevada-chartered qualified custodian. The company is offering a model in which it controls the keys required for custody while clients can retain additional signing authority, alongside a second arrangement distributing key control among AnchorWatch, BitGo and CoinCorner.

The firm says eligible customers can apply for insurance backed by Lloyd’s of London syndicates. Its launch announcement described a possible limit of up to $370 million per client, although coverage depends on underwriting approval and the terms of an individual policy. This is not blanket protection automatically attached to every Bitcoin in custody.

Pricing is also part of its pitch. AnchorWatch is positioning fixed-dollar custody charges, with a monthly ceiling of $10,000, against the percentage-based pricing common across institutional asset services. Insurance costs are separate.

The structure is aimed at customers who want the controls of regulated custody without concentrating every signing decision in a single institution.

Ultimately, the value of any such product depends on the actual key arrangements, policy exclusions, service reliability and how clearly clients understand the risks that remain uninsured.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Bitcoin Magazine

AnchorWatch Launches Nevada Trust Company, Caps Bitcoin Custody Fees at $10,000 a Month

Bitcoin custody and insurance firm AnchorWatch has said that its Nevada state-chartered trust company opened for business, offering qualified custody for fiduciaries, public companies, trusts and high-net-worth individuals.

AnchorWatch Trust Company, authorized by the Nevada Financial Institutions Division to act as a custodian, opened on Monday, according to AnchorWatch. 

The service is aimed at public companies holding BTC, a category that has expanded sharply as more corporations have added the asset to their balance sheets.

JUST IN: AnchorWatch Trust Company launches a Bitcoin custody service with up to $370 million in insurance per client

"Its clients include fiduciaries, public companies, trusts, and high-net-worth individuals requiring qualified bitcoin custody." — The Block pic.twitter.com/sxGL36ee7I

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) October 19, 2026

The company’s flagship differentiator is pricing: fixed-dollar annual fees tiered by vault size, capped at $10,000 per month, rather than the percentage-of-assets charges typical among qualified custodians. Once a client hits the cap, additional bitcoin purchases or price appreciation do not increase the annual fee.

“For large enterprises, the pricing cap will translate to potential six- or seven-figure annual savings for qualified custody,” the company said in its announcement.

ATC offers clients two qualified-custody models. Flagship Custody, where ATC holds the keys required for qualified custody while the client’s trustees or executives hold additional keys, and multi-institution custody, where key control is distributed across three institutions — AnchorWatch Trust Company, BitGo in the United States, and CoinCorner in the Isle of Man.

The multi-institution model addresses a growing concern among institutional bitcoin holders: concentration risk at a single custodian, an anxiety sharpened by past industry failures.

Clients may also apply for insurance issued in the covered client’s or entity’s name — a structure AnchorWatch contrasts with policies held in the custodian’s name, where coverage terms may leave ambiguity about the client’s position in a claim. The insurance is provided by AnchorWatch and backed by A+ rated Lloyd’s of London syndicates.

As a Lloyd’s of London Coverholder, AnchorWatch says it has authority to write up to $370 million in limits per ATC client, covering loss of Bitcoin from perils including violent coercion and kidnapping, as well as losses arising from fraudulent acts by AnchorWatch itself. Coverage is subject to underwriting approval and policy terms.

Insurance is available to U.S.-domiciled companies and subsidiaries and U.S.-resident individuals. Custody without insurance may be available across a broader range of jurisdictions, subject to KYC and AML requirements.

AnchorWatch’s underlying custody platform, Trident Vault, has secured customer Bitcoin for 20 months, according to the company. It has been audited or reviewed by security firms Halborn and Doyensec, and by the technical underwriters at the Lloyd’s syndicates backing the policies. 

AnchorWatch describes itself as a Bitcoin-native insurance and custody company; ATC is its Nevada state-chartered trust company arm.

This post AnchorWatch Launches Nevada Trust Company, Caps Bitcoin Custody Fees at $10,000 a Month first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

California has secured a $500,000 settlement with Fidelity Digital Asset Services over restrictions that previously prevented some crypto customers from moving purchased coins to their own wallets.

TL;DR: Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the settlement on October 16. California challenged historical withdrawal restrictions; Fidelity disputes that its conduct breached state law, and transfers were enabled after a 2025 regulatory approval.

The issue is a straightforward one for anyone accustomed to self-custody: buying crypto through an app is not necessarily the same as being able to withdraw it. California’s commodity rules require certain transactions to involve physical delivery within a defined period. The state’s position is that delivery of cryptocurrency requires the buyer to be able to transfer the asset away from the dealer.

Fidelity told investigators that it had been waiting for permission from the New York Department of Financial Services before allowing external withdrawals. That permission arrived in April 2025, at which point the company enabled the functionality. The state says the earlier restrictions were unlawful; Fidelity disputes that conclusion.

The California Department of Justice linked its investigation to an earlier case concerning Robinhood Crypto. The announcement is therefore part of a wider regulatory argument over what rights buyers should receive when crypto is sold through a conventional financial services interface.

The dollar amount is relatively small for a company of Fidelity’s size. The principle is larger. Regulators are examining whether customers who pay for cryptocurrencies receive meaningful control over their holdings or only an internal account balance. Investors should still check withdrawal availability and the terms of their specific account rather than assume every Fidelity product works identically.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: Deutsche Bank is preparing to introduce institutional digital asset custody services, initially targeting professional clients in Germany. The planned platform is part of a wider effort to connect cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets to established banking infrastructure.

Deutsche Bank is nearing the commercial launch of its institutional cryptocurrency custody business, another sign that major European lenders increasingly regard digital assets as part of mainstream financial services.

Comments reported on October 16 indicated that the German banking giant expects to begin serving institutional customers within weeks. Its offering is intended to support assets including Bitcoin and Ethereum, using technology developed with Swiss digital asset infrastructure company Taurus.

This is not a new retail cryptocurrency trading app. The initial market consists of businesses and professional investors with demanding custody and compliance requirements.

Why Banks Are Entering Custody

Holding cryptocurrency for institutional clients involves more than storing private keys. Banks must address asset segregation, operational controls, reporting, insurance arrangements and regulators’ expectations.

The service would allow eligible institutions to interact with digital assets through a familiar banking relationship rather than exclusively relying on specialised cryptocurrency companies.

Traditional finance is already developing related infrastructure. Projects involving blockchain settlement and tokenized deposits illustrate how established financial businesses are adapting their systems.

The Longer-Term Opportunity

Deutsche Bank has also discussed tokenized deposits, digital securities and possible expansion into Asian financial centres in 2027.

These ambitions remain subject to regulatory approvals and operating arrangements. A planned launch should not be confused with an already operating global service.

Nevertheless, the direction is clear. Rather than merely offering clients exposure to cryptocurrency prices, traditional banks increasingly want to provide the infrastructure through which digital assets are held, transferred and managed.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

Bitcoin Magazine

Deutsche Bank To Debut Bitcoin Custody Within Weeks: Report

German multinational Deutsche Bank is just weeks away from its crypto custody service, according to reports. 

The lender — which is Germany’s biggest — also plans to ​expand the custody platform into Asia next year​, according to a Friday Reuters report, which quoted its corporate banking chief. 

Top banks worldwide are debuting or planning to debut crypto custody services, with BNY Mellon, State Street, Standard Chartered, U.S. Bank, and Citigroup all committing to direct crypto custody over the past 18 months.

JUST IN: €732 billion Deutsche Bank to launch Bitcoin custody to its 28 million clients pic.twitter.com/TAh9EwLkIX

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) October 16, 2026

Deutsche Bank first officially announced plans to debut a bitcoin custody service for European corporate and institutional clients in September, with the German multinational at the time saying service was subject to the completion of the applicable regulatory timeline.

Friday’s report added that the service will support custody of ​major ⁠cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin before moving to services that help clients move money into and out of ⁠stablecoins.

Gerald Podobnik, co-head of the corporate ⁠bank, was quoted by Reuters saying that the financial system will need to “offer tokenized or blockchain solutions.” 

A number of top banks have started using the technology that powers bitcoin, the blockchain, for their own products in recent years. 

Stablecoins and tokenization in particular have become a hot topic as traditional financial firms aim to accelerate certain services. 

Crypto custody is often a starting point for banks moving into the digital asset space. BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services.  

Banks like Citi and Standard Chartered have this year debuted or announced plans for bitcoin custody around the world. 

This post Deutsche Bank To Debut Bitcoin Custody Within Weeks: Report first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.

Bitcoin Magazine

Standard Chartered to Offer Digital Asset Custody in Singapore

Standard Chartered plans to offer crypto custody services for institutional clients in Singapore, the British multinational has said. 

Institutional and corporate clients increasingly want secure, regulated, bank-grade custody for digital assets, the bank said Thursday. Standard Chartered already offers the service in the United ‌Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, and Hong Kong.

“Singapore is an important centre for financial innovation, with a strong institutional ecosystem and growing demand for trusted digital asset solutions,” Patrick Lee, CEO, Singapore and CEO, ASEAN & South Asia, Standard Chartered, said. 

JUST IN: Standard Chartered Bank announced its plans to provide custody services for Bitcoin and digital assets today pic.twitter.com/Ynmdd5VEtP

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) October 8, 2026

“Robust infrastructure will be critical to supporting the secure movement, safekeeping, and servicing of tokenised assets at an institutional scale.”

Banks worldwide are integrating or offering bitcoin-related products and services. A number of U.S. and European banks have started offering crypto-related services by custodying assets for institutions.

Standard Chartered added the custody service would be for “selected cryptoassets, stablecoins and tokenized real-world assets.” 

Tokenization is a hot topic on Wall Street as a number of traditional finance firms do deals with crypto companies, mostly to bring stocks on the blockchain to allow for 24-7 trading. Other assets are also being considered or debuted. 

In 2025, Standard Chartered set up a trading desk for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in London, making it one of the first global banks to enter spot cryptocurrency trading.

The crypto desk became part of the forex trading operation. The bank the same year launched a blockchain unit called Libeara to help institutions tokenize traditional assets. 

Last month, the bank debuted bitcoin trading in the UAE for institutional clients. 

Crypto custody is often a starting point for banks moving into the digital asset space. BNY Mellon in 2022 became the first major U.S. bank to offer digital asset custody services. 

And last month, Germany’s Deutsche Bank said it plans to launch a custody service for bitcoin, ether and select stablecoins for European corporate and institutional clients later in 2026, pending regulatory approval.

This post Standard Chartered to Offer Digital Asset Custody in Singapore first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.