Overview of Digital Asset Custody Infrastructure
As the digital asset industry evolves, businesses need secure infrastructure to store and manage cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets. Digital asset security platforms like Fireblocks have emerged to offer institutional-grade wallet management, custody, and connectivity to exchanges, DeFi, and staking networks.
These platforms rely on advanced cryptography such as Multi-Party Computation (MPC) and Hardware Security Modules (HSM) to safeguard private keys while maintaining accessibility and speed. Many also provide APIs and software “as a service,” allowing fintechs, exchanges, and asset managers to integrate custody solutions without building them from scratch.
This guide compares Fireblocks with its top competitors in 2025–2026, summarizing key features, technology, deployment models, pricing structures, and ideal use cases. You’ll also learn which platforms fit best for startups, exchanges, and institutional investors.
Summary of Leading Digital Asset Security Platforms
| Platform | Core Features | Security Technology | Deployment Model | Ideal For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fireblocks | All-in-one custody and transfer network; DeFi, staking, and tokenization support | MPC (key shares distributed among nodes) | SaaS (cloud API and console) | Banks, exchanges, fintechs managing high-volume transfers |
| BitGo | Institutional custody with hot/cold wallets, staking, and insurance coverage | Multi-signature HSM-based wallets | Hosted custody service and API | Exchanges and funds needing regulated custody |
| Copper | Custody with ClearLoop off-exchange settlement network | MPC custody (one key share kept offline) | SaaS custody with ClearLoop API | Trading firms needing fast exchange access |
| Ledger Enterprise | Self-custody hardware-based enterprise wallets | HSM and secure hardware modules | Managed SaaS and on-premise options | Exchanges or firms preferring hardware root of trust |
| Ripple Custody (Metaco) | Institutional custody platform for tokenized assets | HSM and MPC hybrid | On-prem or private cloud | Banks and custodians requiring full compliance integration |
| Anchorage Digital | Qualified crypto bank custody with staking and governance | Secure enclave hardware (HSM/TEE) | Custody as a service | U.S. institutions needing regulated bank custody |
| Dfns | Wallet-as-a-Service API platform for scalable wallet creation | MPC-based non-custodial management | Fully cloud-based SaaS | Fintechs, developers, and Web3 startups |
| Fordefi | MPC wallet for DeFi with risk policies and real-time alerts | MPC self-custody | Cloud service and browser extension | DeFi funds and trading institutions |
| Safe (Gnosis Safe) | Open-source on-chain multisig smart contract wallet | Multi-signature smart contract security | Self-hosted, on-chain | DAOs and Web3 startups |
| Hex Trust | Licensed Asia-based custodian with DeFi access | Multi-sig and HSM custody | Regulated custody service | Banks and fintechs in APAC |
| Palisade | Modular custody APIs for tokenized assets | MPC and HSM hybrid | API-based custody service | Token issuers and asset managers |
Pricing Models and Cost Considerations
Most institutional custody providers tailor pricing to asset size and usage. Below are typical pricing models:
1. Subscription and AUM-Based Fees
Providers such as Fireblocks, Copper, and BitGo charge a mix of annual subscriptions and basis-point fees on assets under custody (AUC). Industry rates average between 10 to 50 basis points (bps) depending on scale.
- Fireblocks pricing starts around $2,400 per year + 0.23% per transaction, scaling to enterprise tiers.
- BitGo’s published rates hover near 0.25% annually, decreasing for larger clients.
- Copper and Anchorage often negotiate enterprise-level pricing with high minimums.
2. Usage-Based SaaS Pricing
Newer API-driven platforms like Dfns offer transparent SaaS pricing, starting at $60–$600 per month with no percentage cut of assets or transactions. This model appeals to startups and mid-size companies looking to avoid asset-based fees.
3. Free or Open-Source Options
Safe (Gnosis Safe) is free aside from on-chain gas costs. It provides open-source smart contract wallets for teams or DAOs but requires technical expertise and is limited to EVM chains.
4. Hidden Costs
Integration, migration, and long-term contracts can create hidden expenses. Some providers like Fireblocks have been criticized for “vendor lock-in” and add-on charges for advanced APIs. Developer-first options such as Dfns focus on transparent, flexible pricing to address this concern.
Choosing the Right Platform by Company Stage
For Early-Stage Startups and Web3 Projects
- Safe (Gnosis Safe): Ideal for DAOs and crypto-native startups managing treasuries transparently.
- Dfns: Best for fintech and Web3 startups needing embedded wallet functionality with low upfront cost and developer-friendly APIs.
- Ledger Hardware: A simple self-custody option using hardware wallets combined with multisig for lean operations.
Avoid high-end solutions like Fireblocks or Copper at this stage, as their minimum costs are typically excessive for small teams.
For Exchanges and Trading Platforms
- Fireblocks: Industry leader for hot wallets, secure transfers, and liquidity network access. Integrates with most major exchanges and blockchains.
- Copper: Excellent for exchanges seeking off-exchange settlement and liquidity via ClearLoop.
- BitGo: Strong for exchange cold storage and compliance, offering regulated custody and insurance coverage.
- Fordefi: Suitable for exchanges expanding into DeFi participation with enterprise-grade controls.
A hybrid setup combining Fireblocks (for hot wallets) and BitGo or Ledger (for cold storage) is often the best practice.
For Institutional Asset Managers and Custodians
- Anchorage Digital: U.S.-regulated qualified custodian with a bank charter.
- Ripple Custody (Metaco): Designed for banks integrating tokenized assets into their systems.
- Ledger Enterprise: Ideal for firms wanting secure self-custody via hardware.
- Palisade: Best for tokenization and digital securities, integrating compliance automation.
- BitGo and Coinbase Custody: Preferred by funds, ETFs, and corporate treasuries seeking insured, regulated storage.
Many large institutions combine multiple solutions—using a regulated custodian for secure long-term storage and an MPC platform like Fireblocks or Dfns for operational flexibility.
Key Takeaways
- Startups and DAOs: Choose low-cost, flexible solutions (Safe, Dfns) that emphasize programmability and open access.
- Exchanges and Fintechs: Opt for MPC-based infrastructure (Fireblocks, Copper) that balances speed, security, and liquidity.
- Institutions and Banks: Prioritize licensed custodians (Anchorage, BitGo, Ripple Custody) or hardware-secured platforms (Ledger Enterprise).
- Hybrid Models: Combine hot and cold custody layers for both security and efficiency.
Before committing to a provider, test integrations through sandbox environments, review SOC 2 reports, and verify the vendor’s compliance standing. Migration between custody platforms can be complex, so it is best to start with scalable, open infrastructure.
Reach out to Ridgeway Financial Services (RFS) if you need help selecting a custody platform, implementing internal controls (access governance, approvals, segregation of duties), or making your digital asset operations audit-ready.
Conclusion
The digital asset custody market in 2026 offers a wide spectrum of options, from open-source multisig wallets to bank-grade custodians. The best digital asset security platform depends on your company’s stage, regulatory obligations, and crypto strategy.
Fireblocks remains a top choice for exchanges and enterprises requiring seamless asset transfers. However, developer-focused alternatives like Dfns and institutional custodians like Anchorage or Ripple Custody provide strong, specialized options.
By aligning your custody strategy with your operational needs and compliance requirements, your organization can safeguard digital assets effectively while staying ready for growth and innovation.
FAQs
1) What is a digital asset security platform, and how is it different from a qualified custodian?
Digital asset security platforms provide the technology layer for wallet creation, key management, policy controls, and transfers. A qualified custodian is a regulated entity that holds assets under specific legal and supervisory requirements. Some providers combine both, while others are strictly infrastructure software.
2) Fireblocks vs DFNS: which is more secure?
Both can be secure when configured correctly. Fireblocks is typically chosen for mature institutional workflows and network connectivity, while DFNS is often chosen for embedded-wallet and developer-first architectures. Security depends most on implementation: governance policies, approval flows, key management design, and operational controls.
3) What is MPC custody and how does it compare to HSM and multisig?
MPC splits signing authority across multiple parties so no single system holds the full private key. HSM relies on tamper-resistant hardware to protect keys. Multisig uses multiple keys and requires multiple approvals on-chain. The best choice depends on threat model, chain support, operational needs, and audit requirements.
4) Fireblocks vs Copper vs Anchorage Digital vs Metaco (Ripple Custody): what are the key differences?
Fireblocks and Copper are often selected for high-velocity operational transfers and exchange connectivity (with Copper’s ClearLoop focus). Anchorage Digital is often selected when a regulated, U.S.-based qualified custodian is required. Metaco is frequently used by banks and institutions needing tighter integration with internal compliance and legacy systems.
5) BitGo vs Fireblocks: which is better for regulated custody and insurance?
BitGo is commonly used for regulated custody and insurance-oriented custody setups. Fireblocks is more commonly positioned as infrastructure for secure operations and transfer workflows. Many organizations use both: one for long-term custody, one for operational movement.
6) Which platforms support strong role-based access controls and segregation of duties?
Look for granular roles, policy engines, multi-approver workflows, whitelisting, transaction limits, and tamper-evident logging. The “best” platform is the one that lets you implement your internal control design cleanly and prove it to auditors through logs, reports, and governance artifacts.
7) What should I review in a vendor’s security and compliance posture before signing?
Ask for SOC reports (and scope), ISO certifications if applicable, penetration testing approach, incident response process, business continuity and disaster recovery posture, and how they handle privileged access. Also verify auditability: exportable logs, approvals history, and policy change tracking.
8) What does digital asset custody infrastructure typically cost and what are the hidden costs?
Common models include subscription plus usage fees, AUM/AUC-based pricing, and developer SaaS tiers. Hidden costs often come from implementation, add-on modules, minimum commitments, migration effort, and long-term “lock-in” constraints. Budget for integration and ongoing controls operations, not just vendor fees.
9) Which platform is best for exchanges, trading firms, and high-volume settlement?
Prioritize low-latency policy enforcement, exchange and liquidity venue connectivity, reliable APIs, and proven operational workflows. Many high-volume operators choose an MPC platform for hot operations plus a separate regulated custodian or cold-storage layer for reserves.
10) Which platform is best for DeFi participation and on-chain governance controls?
DeFi-heavy teams typically prioritize real-time policy guardrails, transaction simulation or risk checks (where available), and fast approval flows. Some teams also use smart contract wallets and on-chain multisig for transparency and composability.
11) How hard is it to migrate from one custody platform to another?
Migration can be complex because it impacts governance, key management, whitelists, integrations, and operational procedures. Plan for parallel run time, reconciliation checks, and exporting audit logs and policy history so you can maintain continuity for compliance and financial reporting.
12) Do these platforms help with regulatory compliance and audit reporting?
Some providers offer compliance tooling, reporting exports, and controls support, but they do not replace your internal compliance program. You still need clear policies, approvals, monitoring, and documented controls that map to your regulatory obligations and audit requirements.
Reviewed by YR, CPA
Senior Financial Advisor