Shortlist comparison

Compare institutional custody providers

Compare up to four custody-category providers side by side. Evidence-reviewed fields are separated from unverified directory research.

Choose providersEvidence Index

1 provider shortlisted. Unknown values stay unknown and do not imply a negative finding.

Request introductions
Comparison fieldCoboEvidence reviewed
Profile
Directory categoryDigital Asset Custodians
Custody modelCustodial
Directory verificationunverified
Research statusPrimary-source evidence reviewed
Regulatory jurisdictions
  • Multi-jurisdiction
Regulators / authorities
  • Entity-specific
Regimes / permissions
  • Entity-specific
  • No single globally applicable bank/trust status established
Documented services
  • Custody
  • Wallet infrastructure
Security certificationsNot yet structured
Regulatory evidenceCobo publicly offers custodial wallets, but the reviewed public materials do not establish one globally applicable qualified-custodian or bank/trust status. Regulatory perimeter should be confirmed for the contracting entity.
Security evidenceCobo describes institutional wallet infrastructure spanning custodial, MPC and smart-contract wallet architectures; exact assurance-report scope should be requested during due diligence.
Asset protection evidenceCustodial-wallet documentation describes institutional safekeeping, but public evidence reviewed here is insufficient to generalize segregation, bankruptcy remoteness or insurance across all entities and products.
Procurement caveatTreat Cobo as a mixed custody-and-wallet platform. Verify the legal custody entity, licence, segregation structure and insurance applicable to the intended jurisdiction.

Shortlist summary

Cobo — Digital Asset Custodians — evidence reviewed
Important: Compare output is a research aid. Confirm current licences, assurance reports, insurance, asset segregation and contractual terms directly with each provider before onboarding.