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 fieldMatrixportEvidence reviewed
Profile
Directory categoryDigital Asset Custodians
Custody modelCustodial
Directory verificationunverified
Research statusPrimary-source evidence reviewed
Regulatory jurisdictions
  • Hong Kong
Regulators / authorities
  • Hong Kong trust / TCSP framework
Regimes / permissions
  • Hong Kong TCSP / entity-specific
  • Trust / TCSP entity-specific
Documented services
  • Custody
  • Settlement
Security certificationsNot yet structured
Regulatory evidenceMatrixport’s institutional custody is provided through Cactus Custody. Cactus describes itself as a qualified custodian operating under regulatory/AML requirements and has historically disclosed Hong Kong trust-company/TCSP credentials.
Security evidenceCactus publishes a Trust Center describing ISO certifications, advanced HSM controls, global multi-signature architecture and audit/security controls.
Asset protection evidenceCactus describes segregated accounts, layered hot/cold architecture and insurance coverage; policy terms and legal entity should be confirmed directly.
Procurement caveatThe provider profile is named Matrixport, but the custody service/legal perimeter is Cactus Custody. Procurement should contract and verify the actual custody entity, not infer custody status from the broader Matrixport group.

Shortlist summary

Matrixport — 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.