Which custody offerings should an institution compare?
For third-party safekeeping, evaluate the selected Anchorage Digital Bank, BitGo and Coinbase custody offerings. For technology to operate self-custody, evaluate the selected Fireblocks infrastructure offering. The appropriate shortlist depends on asset control, account structure, required trading workflows and jurisdictional eligibility. This guide compares five offerings across four providers.
The shortlist is a selected research sample, not a market ranking. Core records come from 51 Intel’s curated evidence catalogue; the Fireblocks comparison uses supplementary provider documentation. Primary sources were rechecked on 3 November 2026.
How do the custody operating models differ?
| Offering | Operating model / asset control | Why consider this model? | Primary source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anchorage Digital Bank custody | Delegated safekeeping; source describes separated client assets and offline keys. | Evaluate bank-provided custody with approval controls and asset participation. | Custody description ↗ |
| BitGo Custody Wallets | Delegated custody with separate on-chain wallets. | Evaluate a segregated on-chain storage model. | Account structures ↗ |
| BitGo Go Accounts | Delegated custody; shared operational assets with client interests recorded on the custodian’s books. | Evaluate an operating account; distinguish ledger entitlements from dedicated on-chain units. | Account structures ↗ |
| Coinbase Prime Custody | CCTC custody portfolio; legally segregated holdings in shared operational wallets. | Evaluate combined custody, trading and financing workflows. | Prime Custody guide ↗ |
| Fireblocks self-custody infrastructure | Customer-operated self-custody technology with MPC signing and key backups. | Evaluate infrastructure for running your own digital asset operations. | Self-custody docs ↗ |
Evaluate the named offering, not the entire brand. Legal segregation and separate on-chain addresses describe different things. Provider claims are attributed; these pages do not independently test security or establish legal suitability.
Which custody providers have named institutional appointments?
Two examples in 51 Intel’s curated custody records are Anchorage Digital Bank’s appointment as an additional eligible custodian for BlackRock funds and BitGo’s announced appointment for 21Shares’ U.S. spot ETFs. These are evidence of named relationships, not proof of current balances, exclusive appointments or assets transferred.
BlackRock / Anchorage Digital Bank
Anchorage’s announcement names its bank as an additional custodian eligible to support spot crypto ETPs and other BlackRock funds.
The appointment does not quantify assets transferred or establish current usage.
Read the announcement ↗21Shares / BitGo
BitGo announced that it would serve as a custodian for ARKB and CETH, using the fund names in that announcement.
This historical record does not establish present fund branding, allocations or balances held.
Read the announcement ↗Sourced from 51 Intel’s curated custody records, originally checked 28 October 2026. Linked announcements rechecked 3 November 2026.
Which entities, assets, integrations and prices are documented?
These fields summarize only the reviewed sources. “Not established” marks a gap to resolve with the provider, rather than a missing capability. Open an offering to inspect the same five fields.
Anchorage Digital Bank custody
- Entity
- Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. in the cited appointment.
- Jurisdiction / eligibility
- U.S. bank entity named; client eligibility requires confirmation.
- Assets / networks
- Digital assets and USD described; verify each token and network.
- Integration / operations
- Approval workflow described; API scope not established by these sources.
- Pricing
- No standardized fee schedule in these sources.
BitGo Custody Wallets
- Entity
- Confirm the entity and schedule in the proposed agreement.
- Jurisdiction / eligibility
- Jurisdiction and client eligibility require confirmation.
- Assets / networks
- Digital assets and stablecoins; account comparison excludes fiat for this wallet type.
- Integration / operations
- On-chain transfers; verify API and operational requirements.
- Pricing
- Quote required for comparable costs; on-chain fees apply.
BitGo Go Accounts
- Entity
- Confirm the entity and schedule in the proposed agreement.
- Jurisdiction / eligibility
- Jurisdiction and client eligibility require confirmation.
- Assets / networks
- Digital assets; USD, EUR, GBP and AED listed.
- Integration / operations
- Internal ledger transfers; external withdrawals use the blockchain.
- Pricing
- No comparable all-in fee schedule in the reviewed account guide.
Coinbase Prime Custody
- Entity
- Coinbase Custody Trust Company (CCTC) for custody.
- Jurisdiction / eligibility
- New York entity identified; buyer eligibility must be confirmed.
- Assets / networks
- Crypto and cash; request exact assets and networks.
- Integration / operations
- REST and FIX behavior documented; additional agreements may apply.
- Pricing
- No standardized fee schedule in this source.
Fireblocks self-custody infrastructure
- Entity
- Contracting entity not established in this technical source.
- Jurisdiction / eligibility
- Client and jurisdiction eligibility not established here.
- Assets / networks
- Exact required assets and networks must be confirmed.
- Integration / operations
- APIs, API Co-Signer and key backups documented.
- Pricing
- No standardized fee schedule in this source.
What should we ask a custody provider before procurement?
Who can move the assets?
Map the signing parties, approval rules, emergency powers and operational duties retained by your team.
How are assets held?
Request the contracting entity and legal terms. Distinguish legal segregation from separate on-chain addresses.
Does it support our exact workflow?
Verify the assets, networks, jurisdictions, transaction types and staking or trading activities you actually need.
What happens under stress?
Test withdrawals, recovery, approval failures and service outages. Ask for escalation procedures and recovery evidence.
Which controls can we inspect?
Request relevant audit scope, access controls, logs, reconciliation and incident procedures. Confirm what insurance terms cover.
Can we move away cleanly?
Check asset portability, key recovery where applicable, data exports, termination notice and migration costs.
How should custody costs be compared?
The reviewed pages do not provide a comparable, standardized fee schedule for all four offerings. Request a written quote on the same assumptions: assets under custody, transaction activity, networks, seats, integrations and service levels.
| Cost component | What to ask |
|---|---|
| Setup | Onboarding, integration, migration and implementation charges. |
| Ongoing service | Minimum fees, custody charges, subscriptions and support tiers. |
| Activity | Withdrawal, settlement, trading, staking and network charges. |
| Exit | Termination fees, export costs and migration assistance. |
A missing public price is an information gap. It does not mean the service is free or more expensive than another provider.
Custody selection: common buyer questions
Is Fireblocks self-custody infrastructure the same as a custody service?
No. The selected Fireblocks offering supplies signing and wallet infrastructure. A custody service allocates safekeeping duties to a provider. Confirm the contracted product and responsibilities before treating them as alternatives.
How do BitGo Custody Wallets and Go Accounts differ?
BitGo distinguishes separate on-chain Custody Wallets from Go Accounts that use a ledger for client interests and internal transfers. This is a product-level distinction within one provider.
Is Coinbase Prime Custody the same as Prime Vault?
No. Coinbase describes Prime Custody as a portfolio supporting custody, trading and financing. Prime Vault uses dedicated addresses and requires a transfer before trading.
Which custody provider is best for a bank or asset manager?
This evidence does not establish a universal winner. For a bank, first decide whether to delegate safekeeping or operate custody using technology. For an asset manager, first establish the required custody perimeter, asset coverage and trading workflow. Apply entity and jurisdiction requirements before comparing features.
Product-model sources: Fireblocks ↗ · BitGo account terms ↗ · Coinbase portfolio guide ↗.
Where does this custody comparison’s evidence come from?
The named appointments and core product distinctions were selected from 51 Intel’s curated market evidence, then checked against the primary sources linked on this page. Supplementary Fireblocks documentation supplies the self-custody comparison. Use-case framing and procurement questions are 51’s analysis.
How can 51 Intel help me compare custody providers?
51 Intel organizes vendor evidence by market, company and product. For a custody shortlist, compare Anchorage Digital and BitGo in the independent-custodian market, inspect the account model and open the sources behind the capability and client records.
-
Select the custody market.
Keep bank custody, wallet technology and prime brokerage in their relevant comparison contexts.
-
Inspect the exact offering.
Compare asset segregation, signing controls and supported workflows at product level.
-
Open the evidence.
Check the source and observation date before carrying a finding into your shortlist.
51 Intel is a paid research workspace. These links require platform access. The public guides remain readable without an account.