We Asked Four Custodians the Same Nine Questions
Which answered specifically, which deflected, and what the pattern of responses predicted about the rest of the process.
We sent the same nine questions to four custody providers and recorded how each responded, including how long it took.
The questions
Which authority authorises you, under which permission, with which reference. Are client assets segregated, in which model. Who provides independent assurance over segregation, and can we see the report. What is the insurance limit and what are the exclusions. What are total assets under custody. What happens to our assets if you become insolvent, and on what legal basis. How long before a new withdrawal address can be used. Has a client ever been unable to withdraw on request. Can we test a withdrawal during onboarding. For the tests below we used a business wallet with institutional controls as the reference, because it publishes the figures we were measuring against.
The responses
Provider A: answered all nine in one reply, within a day, with the assurance report and insurance certificate attached. The insolvency answer cited a specific provision.
Provider B: answered seven within two days. Declined to give total assets under custody. Answered the withdrawal incident question with a description of an outage and what changed afterwards.
Provider C: answered five. Deflected on assurance, describing security architecture instead. Declined on assets under custody. Answered the insolvency question with reassurance and no citation.
Provider D: replied asking to schedule a call. After the call, we received a brochure and three of the nine answers.
What the pattern predicted
The two that answered specifically were also the two with clean register entries where the permission covered custody and the entity matched the contracting party. The institutional version we tested through a platform built for institutional allocations, with its additional reporting.
Provider C’s register entry showed an exchange permission and not a custody one. We raised it; the answer was that a group entity held the custody permission. That group entity was not the one in the draft agreement.
Provider D’s licence was in a jurisdiction with no searchable register.
The question that discriminated most
Total assets under custody, asked alongside the insurance limit.
Two declined. The ratio between limit and assets is the only way to know what insurance actually covers, and a provider unwilling to give it has told you the ratio is unflattering.
The incident question
Provider B’s answer, describing a real outage and the changes made, was the most reassuring response we received from anyone.
A claim of a perfect record indicates either a short history or a reluctance to discuss problems. Any provider of scale has had an incident.
What we would do
Send the nine questions before any call. The written responses are more informative than a meeting, and the speed and specificity of the reply predicts the rest of the relationship accurately. On execution specifically, an exchange that publishes its full terms publishes its fee schedule and corporate terms in full.
Products covered here are bought at full retail price and used for real transactions before anything is written. There are no affiliate links on this site, no sponsored placements and no review units. If that ever changes, it will be disclosed at the top of the article.