The metaverse, a virtual reality space where users can interact in a simulated environment, has its complexities. Centralized versions often restrict economic activities due to the intricacies of creating marketplaces, while decentralized versions face issues with transaction costs and scalability.
Marketplaces are notoriously difficult to implement well, when developers have to start from scratch, which is one of the main reasons why most centralized metaverses limit economic activity so much.
On the other hand transactions have a cost in decentralized metaverses, and most blockchains have bandwidth issues at scale, something their centralized counterparts have solved for the most part.
In a way, the metaverse is not entirely new. From SimCity, first released in 1989(1), to Second Life, released in 2003(2), there clearly always was a market for people who wanted to live life in fictitious worlds with different, often simpler, rules than society had to offer.
In their report titled “Value creation in the Metaverse,” consulting company McKinsey identified 10 layers of the metaverse.(3)
The same report by McKinsey suggests that the metaverse industry could create up to $5 trillion in revenue by 2030. Citi’s report on the same topic reported metaverse revenue to be between $8 and $13 trillion by 2030.(4)
Despite these hurdles, the metaverse holds significant potential. Reports suggest that by 2030, it could generate trillions in revenue, highlighting the immense opportunities this digital universe may offer in the future.
1 See Wikipedia for a history of the game: SimCity 2 The history of that game can be found here: Second Life 3 Download the report here: Value creation in the Metaverse 4 See Citi’s report here: Metaverse and Money
The unfolding digital universe, known as the metaverse, is being shaped by two distinct approaches: a decentralized path powered by blockchain technology, and a centralized one driven by major corporations. This analysis delves into the unique facets and potential pitfalls of each approach.
There are two main paths to the metaverse — two rabbit holes, to keep with our leading quote. One is the “decentralized” metaverse that is powered by tokens, and one is the “centralized” metaverse that is built by corporations, some of which are publicly traded. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, which you’ll read in this report.
In a nutshell, the centralized metaverse is built in a very similar way to Web2, with corporations owning the rails, the marketplaces and the data, but can easily offer a streamlined user experience. There’s little wonder that both Microsoft and Meta are heavily invested in the space. Microsoft can bring games know-how (Xbox) and now artificial intelligence (AI) power (Bing, OpenAI) to the table, while Facebook already has users interacting avatar to avatar in some way.
The decentralized champions are Decentraland with its native MANA token and The Sandbox, native token SAND. These platforms feature virtual worlds where users can build their homes and rent, sell or transact in any other way without asking for permission, or being at risk of censorship or sudden account locks by developers. One of the strongest points for decentralized offerings is the ability for users to “own” their in-game items on-chain. As long as users do not lose access to their wallets, no one else can take these away.
Decentralized platforms also tend to espouse open standards and composability. This gives users the ability to trade characters and in-game items on open marketplaces without needing consent by developers. Finally, cryptocurrencies offer perfect payment rails for users, and developers building on top of Ethereum or Avalanche get secure transfers, exchanges and wallet technology out of the box, for free.
In Web3, composabilty refers to the way in which open standards enable users to combine different technologies without asking authors for permission. One example would be the way nonfungible token (NFTs) can be “fractionalized.” A developer can deposit their NFT into a smart contract which sells or lends out tiny pieces of that NFT for others to trade or own. The developer doesn’t have to talk to the NFT developers but can use the appropriate standards (ERC-721 and ERC-20 in that case). The fractions are automatically usable in decentralized finance (DeFi) applications if they conform to the standards there. Composability let’s Web3 users create totally new and unforeseen use cases, by themselves, without intermediation.
Both the centralized and decentralized visions of the metaverse offer unique benefits. The centralized model, backed by tech giants such as Microsoft and Meta, delivers a unified user experience. Conversely, the decentralized metaverse, led by platforms like Decentraland and The Sandbox, empowers users with uncensored transaction capabilities and ownership of in-game assets. The flexibility of Web3 allows for the integration of disparate technologies without the need for permission, paving the way for innovative use cases. Grasping these complexities is crucial for understanding the future trajectory of the metaverse.
The metaverse, a proposed network of immersive online worlds where users can interact with each other and purchase goods and services, has been gaining significant attention since Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement of Facebook’s rebranding to Meta Platforms. However, despite the hype, many promises have not been fulfilled. This report aims to provide readers with valuable tools to invest in this promising technology while educating them on what the metaverse is and what it is not.
Welcome to the metaverse! We started out with this famous quote from Alice in Wonderland because the metaverse beckons us with a similar vibe. A place where everything, including the impossible and definitely the improbable, can exist.
After many products and iterations in the general direction of virtual reality (VR) from Morton Heilig’s Sensorama to Meta’s Quest 2 the metaverse was finally in every newspaper after Mark Zuckerberg rebranded the Facebook holding company to Meta Platforms on Oct. 28, 2021.
In the wake of this phenomenal announcement, the token prices of nearly every metaverse crypto token pumped to the moon, as the saying goes. Yet today, it seems that many of the promises have not been fulfilled.
Our report wants to give you, dear reader, valuable tools to find the best projects, the best tokens, the best funds and the best stocks to consider if you want to invest in this promising technology. We also want to educate you on what the metaverse is, and what it isn’t, so you can steer clear of hype machines and snake oil salesmen.
So, what is a metaverse? Is it always tied to blockchains and crypto tokens? Or is it something bigger? Let’s look at some definitions:
A proposed network of immersive online worlds experienced typically through virtual reality or augmented reality, in which users would interact with each other and purchase goods and services, some of which would exist only in the online world. (Britannica)
The internet considered as an imaginary area without limits where you can meet people in virtual reality. (Britannica)
A virtual-reality space in which users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users. (Oxford Languages)
A shared virtual space. (Wikipedia)
Mentally replace the phrase “the metaverse” in a sentence with “cyberspace.” Ninety percent of the time, the meaning won’t substantially change. (Wired)
The metaverse is the next evolution in social connection and the successor to the mobile internet. (Meta Platforms)
What all of these definitions have in common is that they do not reference blockchain technology. All definitions contain a technology that let’s users connect, and many talk about “space.”
We would like to use the Oxford Languages definition for this report because it contains clues to what users can do in the metaverse. So, in one sentence, the metaverse is:
A virtual-reality space in which users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users.
The metaverse is a virtual-reality space where users can interact with a computer-generated environment and other users. Despite not always being tied to blockchain technology, the metaverse has gained significant attention in recent times, and investors are looking for opportunities in this promising technology. This report aims to help investors find the best projects, tokens, funds and stocks while also steering clear of hype machines and snake oil salesmen.
As the world of cryptocurrencies and digital assets continues to grow, the opinions of professional investors remain divided. The Cointelegraph 2022 survey sheds light on the current sentiments among these investors, revealing a stark contrast with the results of a Fidelity survey. This article delves into the factors influencing institutional demand, the evolving landscape of blockchain technology, and the potential shift in investment focus towards applications of tokens.
Out of the 84 respondents from the Cointelegraph 2022 survey of professional investors, 48 reported that they are not currently owning cryptocurrencies. Out of those 48 people, two-thirds reported that they do not plan to ever invest in cryptocurrencies. On the other hand, onethird reported that they do plan to buy cryptocurrencies sometime in the future. This is in stark contrast to the results of the Fidelity survey which found 70% of the institutional investors are expected to buy digital assets in the future.
Is Your Company Planning to Invest in the Future?
A few anti-cryptocurrency respondents commented on why they do not own cryptocurrencies, commenting, “Crypto is pure speculation, where unlike Dutch tulips and other bubbles, there is no underlying asset base,” and “It’s rubbish and there is very little real risk management. Just smoke-and-mirrors,” and “I would rather invest in lottery tickets than crypto.”
Institutional demand is driven by the availability of sophisticated trading instruments, but it also drives their development — a classic chicken-and-egg dynamic. We’re seeing markets maturing but nowhere near the speed at which the digital assets and DeFi, in particular, innovate.
How has your perception of crypto assets changed over the last five years?
The last six years have been dominated by the fat protocol thesis of cryptocurrency investing. In a nutshell, it posits that the majority of value is captured at the protocol level in digital assets, and only a small portion at the application level.
That is likely to change soon, as blockspace becomes more of a commodity. Many blockchains have a more or less identical feature set by now, and Ethereum Virtual Machine compatibility plus improvements in bridging technology mean that applications can move from chain to chain or deploy on multiple platforms at once.
Bridging technology like Layer Zero, Quant and THORchain, to some extent, add one more option for institutional demand. But ultimately, blockchains are the medium of of transmission and storage. When we look at the historic development of telephone networks, we can glimpse how this is likely to play out.
While a lot of values are captured on the “protocol” or infrastructure level initially, these companies do not worth even a fraction of the applications building on top of telecommunication infrastructure. Depending on the exact definition, it could be argued that 6 out of the 10 most valuable companies in the world are built on top of telecom infrastructure.
Which digital assets would your company be interested in investing into in future?
It is very much likely that this will repeat with blockchain technology, as it should, since a chain with no application other than the sending and receiving of tokens is very limited in value. This is why we assume that institutional investors will invest in the application of tokens in the near future to a higher degree than into native blockchains.
One major blocker into institutional demand for digital assets we have seen across the board is regulatory concerns. Banking is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world, and as a result, bankers do not feel comfortable investing substantial amounts into assets with unclear legal implications.
The recent Tornado Cash sanctions placed tens of Ethereum addresses on a U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control list and illustrated the validity of legal concerns quite well. From one day to the next, transacting with these smart contracts could be fined with up to 30 years of jail, and substantial funds were frozen in the protocols vaults, even though they belong to users.
Another major concern is liquidity and market contagion. The collapse of TerraUSD (UST) was caused in part by the transaction bandwidth constraints of the Ethereum blockchain and lack of deep liquidity in even the largest stablecoin pools.
We expect institutional demand to start growing much faster when and if regulators offer clarity on the legal and tax implications of digital asset investments. This adoption will also solve most of the liquidity concerns. Institutional demand will enable institutional supply and vice versa. If transactions are taking place on chains themselves or on permissioned rollups or even in private pools, it will be interesting to see.
In conclusion, the future of blockchain technology and digital assets is expected to be shaped by the increasing value of applications built on top of the infrastructure. As the industry matures and blockchains offer similar features, the focus of institutional investors may shift from native blockchains to the applications of tokens. This transition could potentially mirror the historical development of the telecommunication infrastructure, with companies built on top of it becoming increasingly valuable.
Asset managers revealed the most significant perceived risks when investing in cryptocurrencies, rating liquidity risk as the most important risk, according to a recent survey. This starkly contrasts with the 2020 survey of professional investors, which identified regulatory risk as the most significant perceived risk.
Asset managers were asked to rate the importance of perceived risks when investing in crypto assets; the possible risks were the following: liquidity risks, operational risks (technological risks), cybercrime and fraud, regulatory risks, and market risks (volatility). All of the risks mentioned are in the “important spectrum” of the charts. However, the most important risk for those surveyed was liquidity risk.
Liquidity Risks
Source: Cointelegraph Research
This is a stark difference from the 2020 Cointelegraph survey of professional investors. In 2020, regulatory risk was the most important perceived risk. Almost 80% of the sample fell in the “important region” of the graph.
Operational Risks (e.g. Technological risks)
Source: Cointelegraph Research
With approximately 71% and 70% of responses in the “important region,” market risk and liquidity were ranked as the second and third most important risks, respectively.
Cybercrime and Fraud
Source: Cointelegraph Research
Operational and cybercrime risks have the same number of responses in the “important region” (~ 68%). Institutional buyers display a higher degree of sophistication than their retail counterparts. High liquidity and ability to hedge price fluctuations are among the top requirements before institutions are comfortable deploying meaningful amounts of capital.
Would your company like to invest more but are bound by regulatory restrictions?
Source: Cointelegraph Research
Another blocker for institutional investors is the uncertain regulatory environment and the murky tax implications of holding cryptocurrencies on their balance sheet. As much as crypto proponents decry regulatory creep, it has to be admitted that no pension fund, no money manager and no savings and loan bank will invest considerable sums into digital assets without regulatory clarity. It is up to the industry to engage in dialogue with lawmakers worldwide and demonstrate thought leadership. This way, the thinking of regulators can be informed and decisions-guided. Looking from a perspective of institutional demand, we can only hope that the adversarial thinking that is so prevalent in crypto gives way to a pragmatic approach focused on engagement and education.
Market risks (e.g. Volatility)
Source: Cointelegraph Research
The 2020 Cointelegraph survey found that price volatility was the main barrier to adoption, followed by a lack of fundamentals to gauge value and concerns around market manipulation; however, investors cited less concern about complexity for institutions and market infrastructure complexity than previously.
Would you like to invest more but are bound by internal company restrictions?
Source: Cointelegraph Research
The uncertain regulatory environment and murky tax implications of holding cryptocurrencies on balance sheets are blockers for institutional investors. The industry needs to engage in dialogue with lawmakers worldwide to create regulatory clarity and demonstrate thought leadership to inform regulators’ thinking. While price volatility was previously cited as the main barrier to adoption, investors now express less concern about complexity for institutions and market infrastructure complexity.
With assets in ETPs and mutual funds with cryptocurrency exposure exceeding 10.5 billion euros, Europeans are adopting cryptocurrencies through providers like XBT and 21Shares. Ruffer Investment Management made a $745-million bet on Bitcoin in December 2020 to hedge against risks in a fragile economy, while DeFi protocols have boosted the cryptocurrency industry in Central, Northern and Western Europe, according to Chainalysis.
In terms of crypto adoption, Europeans aren’t lagging behind. Assets in European exchange-traded products (ETPs) and mutual funds with cryptocurrency exposure have topped 10.5 billion euros, according to Morningstar data, showing the potential appeal of these products for asset managers.
XBT, part of CoinShares, is the largest provider in Europe, with assets of 5.4 billion euros across eight products domiciled in Sweden and Jersey, followed by Swiss group 21Shares, which manages 2.1 billion euros across its range.
Ruffer Investment Management, a fund manager based in Britain, made a $745-million bet on Bitcoin in December 2020. Ruffer’s allocation fetched $27.3 billion in assets, which it claimed would work as a hedge. It effectively secured 6,500 clients against the risks involved in a fragile digital economy.
Central, Northern & Western Europe Share of Transaction Volume by Transfer Size, Apr ‘19 – Jun ‘21
DeFi, a blanket term for a network of decentralized, noncustodial financial protocols focused on lending, yield farming, crypto derivatives and other products, has reportedly given a huge boost to the cryptocurrency industry in England, France, Germany and other European countries.
According to Chainalysis, European institutional investors are embracing DeFi; transaction volume in Central, Northern and Western Europe grew significantly across virtually all cryptocurrencies and service types, especially on DeFi protocols. An influx of institutional investment, signaled by large transactions, drove most of the growth.
As the cryptocurrency market continues to gain momentum in Europe, institutions are embracing new technologies like DeFi to fuel growth. With transaction volume growing significantly across the region, the future of cryptocurrency in Europe looks bright. As more institutional investors jump on board and invest in cryptocurrencies, we can expect to see continued growth and adoption in the years ahead.
With institutional interest in cryptocurrency on the rise, the asset management industry is stepping up to meet the needs of this growing market. From limited initial exposure to more differentiated strategies, large pension plans and hedge funds are stepping up their stakes in cryptocurrencies as the market becomes more mainstream.
With institutional demand for more actively managed cryptocurrency investments picking up steam, the asset management industry has begun to address the needs of this neglected space. The first signs of institutional interest were about getting initial exposure to Bitcoin and Ether, either directly or through passive products.
Now, the appetite is going beyond this initial exposure to differentiated strategies and an attempt to get more exposure to this growing asset class. Pensions, endowments and foundations have still been some of the slowest investors to adopt cryptocurrencies, according to a Fidelity survey of institutional investors in January 2022.
Large pension plans like the Houston Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund, for example, have announced crypto allocations, but most are still small. The Houston fund’s 2021 allocation to investments in Bitcoin and Ether comprised only 0.5% of its $5.2-billion portfolio. Hedge funds, registered investment advisers and some companies step up their stakes in cryptocurrencies as the market becomes more mainstream. Institutional clients traded $1.14 trillion worth of cryptocurrencies on the Coinbase exchange in 2021, up from just $120 billion the year before and more than twice the $535 billion for retail.
I believe in blockchain technology. There’s going to be that revolution, so it has earned credibility. Bitcoin is like gold, though gold is the well established blue-chip alternative to fiat money
Ray Dalio, Former CEO of Bridgewater Associates | $140 Million
A survey of 300 institutional investors conducted by State Street in October 2021 found that more than 80% were now allowed to have exposure to cryptocurrencies. Large funds with assets of $500 billion or more under management were the most excited, and nearly two-thirds of them had dedicated staff for the crypto market. While the majority of crypto funds have a primary office location in the U.S., fewer than 20% are technically domiciled there (as a Delaware company, for example).
For a variety of tax, legal and regulatory reasons, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands are the predominant offshore legal domiciles for crypto funds. Together, these offshore locales are the domicile for 49% of crypto funds.
As more institutional investors gain exposure to cryptocurrencies, the asset management industry is poised for continued growth. With large funds with assets of $500 billion or more leading the charge, and offshore domiciles like the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands becoming popular choices for crypto funds, the industry is evolving rapidly to meet the demand. As cryptocurrencies continue to gain credibility and mainstream acceptance, we can expect to see even greater institutional interest in the years ahead.
The growth of the cryptocurrency market has been explosive in recent years, as more investors and institutional players have entered the fray. Crypto adoption rates continue to rise around the world, with Asia leading the way in terms of institutional interest. This growth has led to a wider range of products and services across the industry, leading to a positive feedback loop that has helped to drive adoption even further.
The crypto industry has been around for over a decade now and, like many other industries, started with speculative use cases focused on retail users, which goes hand-in-hand with high volatility. Institutional adoption is a direct result of more mature and institutional-grade products in the market, in turn leading to a positive feedback loop with growing institutional interest and products that stand the rigorous tests of compliance and scalability.
Pre-2017, crypto liquidity was limited to a handful of exchanges with a few million dollars in volume across all assets — this has dramatically changed in recent years. More liquidity venues with subsequent on-off ramps between fiat and crypto have been vital to crypto succeeding in institutional use cases.
Crypto Funds by Continent
Source: Crypto Fund Research
According to Fidelity’s study, adoption rates in Asia are higher (71%) than in Europe and the United States. Fidelity found that 56% of Europeans and 33% of U.S. institutions now hold investments in digital assets, up from 45% and 27%, respectively. As of the end of Q4 2021, there were more than 860 crypto funds across the globe with primary offices in more than 80 countries, according to data from Crypto Fund Research.
The pace of new fund launches began to accelerate in the first quarter of 2021, and this trend continued during the rest of 2021 as new fund launches outpaced fund closures for six consecutive quarters. Just over half of all crypto funds are based in North America, most of which are in the United States. Europe and Asia are each home to around 20% of funds.
From limited liquidity and a small number of exchanges to more than 860 crypto funds in over 80 countries, the cryptocurrency market has come a long way in a short time. With institutional adoption rates on the rise and growing interest from investors around the world, the industry is poised for continued growth in the years ahead. As more mature and institutional-grade products enter the market, we can expect to see even greater adoption rates and increased interest from traditional financial institutions.
The cryptocurrency market has seen its fair share of ups and downs, but for institutional investors and industry leaders like Fidelity and Galaxy Investment Partners, this is the perfect opportunity to double down on digital assets. From buying parts of cryptocurrency trusts to using derivatives to trade digital asset price developments, institutional demand for digital assets is on the rise.
Institutional demand for digital assets comes in the form of:
Direct cryptocurrency purchases, such as MicroStrategy buying more than 129,000 BTC to date or Tesla’s $2 billion in BTC holdings.
Purchasing parts of cryptocurrency trusts, like Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust.
Using derivatives like futures and options to trade digital asset price developments.
Buying or selling NFTs like CryptoPunks.
The most vocal institutional holder of Bitcoin is the U.S. company MicroStrategy, whose CEO, Michael Saylor, purchased 129,218 BTC at an average price of $45,714.33.
I figure this is my third crypto winter. There’s been plenty of ups and downs but I see that as an opportunity… I was raised to be a contrarian thinker and so I have this knee jerk reaction: If you believe that the fundamentals of a long term case are really strong, when everybody else is dipping [out], that’s the time to double down and go extra hard into it.
Abigail Johnson, CEO of Fidelity | AUM $4.5 Billion
Latin American country El Salvador is another large institutional buyer of Bitcoin. President Nayib Bukele made Bitcoin a legal tender in September 2021, and the cryptocurrency has seen large success in terms of adoption.
The move to introduce a highly volatile asset as legal tender, which business owners have to accept, has drawn a lot of criticism, with some accusing Bukele of wasting taxpayers money Twitter recognition — after Bitcoin prices plunged in May 2022. We will see how his bet plays out.
What is going to happen is, one of these intrepid pension funds, somebody who is a market leader, is going to say, you know what? We’ve got custody, Goldman Sachs is involved, Bloomberg has an index I can track my performance against, and they’re going to buy. And all of the sudden, the second guy buys. The same FOMO [fear of missing out] that you saw in retail [will be] demonstrated by institutional investors.
Mike Novogratz, CEO of Galaxy Investment Partners | AUM $1.9 Billion
While many have been hesitant to enter the cryptocurrency market, Latin American country El Salvador has taken a bold step by making Bitcoin a legal tender, paving the way for adoption and legitimizing the digital currency. As institutional investors watch and wait, many believe that the market is poised for another boom. The future of digital assets is bright, and we look forward to seeing how this emerging market evolves.
The world of cryptocurrency is constantly evolving, and so are investor attitudes towards it. According to a recent survey by Cointelegraph, nearly two-thirds of professional investors report holding crypto assets in their personal portfolios, marking a significant increase in the past two years.
Close to 2/3 of the professional investors say they hold crypto assets in their personal portfolios. This represents a staggering increase of 18% since the last Cointelegraph survey was done two years ago.
What type of investor is your company?
Several case study resopndents stated that they had privately invested in Bitcoin and other digital assets, while their institutions had not yet made any direct investments.
Are you personally invested into crypto assets?
However, the majority of respondents had a high level of decision-making ability within their firm. A possible explanation for this can be that asset allocators are investing with higher risk aversion when investing on the behalf of others than when investing their own wealth.
While such investors may be more inclined to take risks with their personal wealth, the survey also highlights the fact that institutional investors may approach cryptocurrency investments more cautiously, due to the responsibility they have for the assets of others. As the cryptocurrency market continues to mature, it will be interesting to see the evolving attitudes of investors towards this fascinating and often unpredictable asset class.
There is not a single crypto custodian that scores highly on every dimension, and custodians exhibit different strengths. The right custodian depends very much on the needs of the client.
An Insider Insight with John Gu, CEO of AlphaLab Capital Group
The OGs (Example: BitGo)
This group consists of qualified custodians whose clients are also highly regulated institutions — e.g., Fidelity, Calpers. Their service offering reflects the conservative trading needs of their client base, and while they may be relatively expensive, they are the ideal choice if your primary goal is to minimize risk.
New Guard (Examples: Fireblocks, Copper)
The “second wave” of custodians has established a dominant position in an adjacent market to the OGs and differentiates itself by offering a broader range of services. As such, they are not primarily focused on minimizing risk. They attract clients — e.g., mid-sized hedge funds — with more complex trading requirements, for whom the trade-off between regulatory certainty and enhanced functionality makes sense.
Challengers/Upstarts/Wildcards (Example: Atato)
This group often originates from non-Western markets. They compete with the New Guard, aiming to offer a similar or improved breadth of service — e.g., Atato’s “Bring Your Own Chain” offering supports all assets, past, present, and future — with enhanced usability and a lower price. They represent an attractive choice for smaller funds or startups with complex needs, higher price sensitivity and a willingness to take a chance on a new player.
Specialists (Example: Finoa)
For investors who require deep expertise in a specific area — e.g., staking services — it may make sense to use a specialist custodian in lieu of or in addition to one of the generalists. In the future, one would expect the specialists to raise their performance across the other axes or for the generalists to raise their game to accommodate specialist needs. For now, a multi-custodian approach may be the best bet.
The above represents the current state of the market and not the end or ideal state. That said, we do not believe that winner-takes-all effects will prevail, leaving one or two dominant players as the main or only viable choice. The crypto investor market is uneven and calls for a range of players to fulfill various use cases. Knowing what you need is therefore key, and (for now at least) performing careful due diligence is paramount.
As cryptocurrency continues to grow in popularity, larger organizations such as hedge funds and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) have to deal with the reality of growing regulation, risk from hackers, and responsibility to their clients. One of the most important factors for these organizations is choosing the right custodian for their assets. However, with the sheer number of options available and the secrecy of the industry, finding the right custodian can be a daunting task.
While self-custody (“your keys = your crypto”) remains the ideal for cryptocurrency purists, larger organizations, such as hedge funds and Web3-native entities, such as decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) have to grapple with the reality of growing regulation (by governments), risk (from hackers) and responsibility (to their clients).
The custody landscape, like everything else, is an emerging field with a range of heterogeneous solutions. In addition to the sheer number of options available, the expected secrecy of the industry makes it difficult to find details unless you are able to ask very specific questions and know the range of the offerings at hand.
We’ve narrowed down the important factors for the potential custody user.
DeFi Connectivity
The sprawling world of DeFi, with its decentralized lenders, trading platforms and native tokens, such as stablecoins, is continuously evolving. The ability to connect and trade seamlessly within and between these protocols is vital for clients, for whom DeFi represents a core part of their strategy.
Staking/Yield Services
Putting your money to work by staking (on a validator node) or earning yield (via DeFi protocols) is an increasingly vital part of crypto investing. It also requires time and effort that could be spent elsewhere, and the ability of a custodian to take on this role represents a distinct advantage for the professional investor.
Supported Assets
History (especially recent history) has shown that there are no “safe” coins, so it is necessary to build a diversified portfolio, not only across tokens but also across chains. Ideally, a custodian should be able to support any asset you bring, but in reality, the ability to add new coins can be constrained in the case of older technology.
Pricing Competitiveness
The traditional pricing structure is to charge based on asset value (assets under custody) and the number of transactions. New providers are increasingly innovating on pricing models, including offering fixed fee subscriptions, tiered by service level, which can mean significant savings in comparison to asset or activitybased fees (which are not capped). Thus, pricing structure (basis points or $) is often more important than price level (25 bps vs. 35 bps).
Security
The most basic and most important service of a custodian is to keep assets safe. There are multiple methods that custodians use to keep your keys secure (MPC, HSM) and various ways in which they can demonstrate the efficacy of these systems (such as audits). Systems ultimately demonstrate their security when they manage to scale without being successfully hacked or experiencing a major code failure. But ultimately, a history of no major hacks or code failures is the truest testament to a system’s security.
Insurance
Since no security system is invulnerable and human beings are fallible, insurance is the last line of defense and should, in theory, provide users with ultimate peace of mind. The reality of crypto custody insurance is often patchy, so even if a custodian claims to be insured, it is important to pay attention to the level and terms of coverage, ideally with an expert trained to read the fine print.
Choosing the right custodian for cryptocurrency assets is crucial for larger organizations dealing with growing regulation, risk, and responsibility. Factors such as DeFi connectivity, staking/yield services, supported assets, pricing competitiveness, security, and insurance are important considerations when choosing a custodian. By carefully considering these factors, organizations can ensure that their cryptocurrency assets are safe and secure.
