I’ll talk about the Crypto Custody Risks That Businesses Seldom Discuss in this post. While many businesses concentrate on external hackers, they frequently ignore hidden risks including human mistake, inadequate key backups, single points of failure, and regulatory loopholes.
Building trust in the quickly changing crypto industry, protecting digital assets, and avoiding irreversible losses all depend on an understanding of these seldom highlighted issues.
What is Crypto Custody?
Crypto custody is an essential aspect of the ownership of cryptocurrencies that involves the management and storage of digital assets on behalf of individuals and companies. Cryptocurrencies are not like money that is kept in a bank, and instead exist as digital keys on a blockchain.
This means, that access to the funds are dependent on the private keys that can lead to a permanent loss of access to the crypto custody, making it a critical aspect of ownership. Ownership of custody can be divided into two categories.

Self custody where individuals and firms manage their own private keys using a secure software or a hardware wallet, and third party custody which is where digital assets are managed by a professional service on behalf of their clients accompanied often by insurance and regulatory compliance.
Good custody involves the use of multilayered security that can include cold storage (offline vaults), multisig (multisignature) vaults, and encrypted backups that safeguards against operational failures, hacking, and human error. For companies, custody is more than just securing the digital assets. It’s also about implementation of internal policies, regulatory compliance, and disaster recovery.
Crypto Custody Risks Businesses Rarely Talk About

Operational Risks
- Employees can make mistakes by, for example, sending funds to the incorrect addresses.
- Critical business assets may be inaccessible if private keys or access credentials for wallets are mishandled.
Security Risks
- Hot wallets, which are online, can be susceptible to hacking and phishing.
- There may be poor password security, bad software maintenance, or bad keys to lose managing funds.
Regulatory Risks
- There can be a loss of money or other legal issues if applicable local crypto laws are ignored.
- If applicable custody procedures address a loss of crypto assets, the company may be held responsible.
Counterparty Risks
- Third-party custodians may fail due to insolvency, fraud, or inefficient controls.
- There are and may be hidden risks associated with custodians inadequate or excessive secretive practices of holding and protecting assets.
Technological Risks
- There is a maximized risk of theft from the funds due to flaws that may be present in wallet software, smart contracts, or APIs.
- Outdated technology or unsupported systems are more vulnerable to cyberattacks.
Recovery & Backup Risks
- If recovery phrases, passwords, or multisignature keys are lost, these assets are gone forever.
- Businesses are exposed to hardware failures and data corruption due to inadequate planning for disaster recovery.
Human Factor Risks
- Malicious employees or contractors pose insider threats and can circumvent security to exfiltrate assets.
- Falling short of training employees on crypto custody best practices can lead to higher mistakes.
Real-World Examples of Custody Failures
| Custody Failure | Description / Key Points |
|---|---|
| Mt. Gox (2014) | One of the largest Bitcoin exchanges at the time lost 850,000 BTC due to poor private key management and internal security weaknesses. Highlights risks of centralized custodians without proper security audits. |
| QuadrigaCX (2019) | The exchange’s founder, Gerald Cotten, died suddenly, taking with him the private keys to $190 million in crypto. This exposed the danger of single-point-of-failure custody with no multi-signature or backup controls. |
| Bitfinex Hack (2016) | Hackers stole 119,756 BTC (~$72 million) from the exchange’s hot wallet. The incident underlined risks of insufficient segregation of hot and cold wallets in custodial setups. |
| Coincheck (2018) | Japanese exchange lost $530 million in NEM tokens due to storing assets in a single, unsecure hot wallet. Showed lack of proper wallet encryption and oversight in custodial practices. |
| Poly Network (2021) | Though funds were eventually returned, a $600 million DeFi hack exploited weak custody practices in smart contracts managing cross-chain assets. Highlights risks in decentralized custody and smart contract vulnerabilities. |
| BitMart Hack (2021) | Around $150 million stolen from compromised hot wallets. Poor monitoring and delayed response worsened the loss. Shows the importance of real-time auditing in custodial services. |
| Anchorage Bug Bounty Incident (2020) | A bug in the custody platform could have allowed unauthorized access. Though mitigated, it shows that even regulated custodians face software vulnerabilities that can lead to potential failures. |
Common but Overlooked Crypto Custody Risks
Single Point of Failure
Relying on one person, one device, or one private key to access funds can create total loss risks.
Phishing & Social Engineering
Employees or even users can be tricked into giving access to hackers, working around even the strongest technical protections.
Software Vulnerabilities
Bugs, outdated code, and misconfigurations in custody service and wallet software can be exploited to steal assets.
Loss of Access
Insufficient, unencrypted, or poorly secured backups of key components of the custody solution are to blame if funds are ever lost or damaged.
Improper Access Controls
Insufficient audit history or poorly designed role-based access controls create opportunities for insider fraud or unauthorized transactions.
Hot Wallet Exposure
Keeping excessive amounts of money in wallets that are available online presents clear risks.
Neglecting Regulatory & Compliance Risk
Users of custodians that neglect compliance with the law or regulation of the host or service jurisdiction face the risks of having their assets seized or encumbered, or custodians facing legal action.
Third Party Dependencies
Cloud services and key management options that are accessed and unprotected are the source of risks if service providers are compromised.* Dangers of Smart Contracts: Smart contracts in DeFi ecosystems or self-custody situations can get exploited, resulting in the loss of assets, especially in the case of bad audits.
Operational Mistakes
Losing the crypto funds due to careless transaction signing, wallet, and key management is much more common than what most digital attackers do, and is often overlooked.
Best Practices to Mitigate Crypto Custody Risks
Using Multi-Signature Wallets
Adding more than one signature required for wallets will deter any fraud activity invisible to your organization and help enhance security.
Segregating Hot and Cold Storage
Keeping most funds on cold wallets will help minimize the risk of hacks, while hot wallets will help remain operational.
Encrypting and Key Backing Up
After geologically splitting and encrypting your recovery seed and private keys, you’d help yourself avoid permanent loss.
Access Controls
Using an access control based on roles, and implementing the least privileged policies can help you in conjunction with your audit logs to enhance your access to the funds.
Pressure Testing
Security audits on your systems, wallets, and smart contracts should be done regularly to mitigate potential threats.
Implementing Employee Training and Awareness
Training personnel on anti-phishing and operational security reduces human error.
Cyber Insurance
The purchase of digital asset insurance can mitigate the losses caused by hacking, theft, or fraud, and should be considered.
Custodians
A relationship with custodians with a good market reputation, who are compliant with the law, should be formed.* Monitor Transactions in Real-Time: Enable alerts for strange or potentially dangerous transaction activity so you can spot threats quickly.
Redundancy & Disaster Recovery Plans
Make sure you have out-of-the-box contingency plans, backup systems, and recovery processes so funds are always available, even during outages or with emergencies.
Smart Contract Audits for DeFi Assets
Make sure decentralized protocols and smart contracts are checked for security audits so there is no room for exploitation.
Regularly Update Security Protocols
Refresh and upgrade security practices, programs, and processes so you can outmaneuver threats.
Future Trends in Crypto Custody

As the market develops and institutional use increases, the future of crypto custody is expected to change quickly. Multi-party computation (MPC) and threshold signature systems, which remove single points of failure and improve security without compromising accessibility, are likely to be used more frequently.
Decentralized custody solutions, which let users maintain control while utilizing expert security infrastructure, will become more popular. Custodians will embrace international standards for audits, reporting, and insurance, making regulatory compliance a key priority.
Furthermore, real-time hack detection and prevention will be aided by AI-driven monitoring and automated threat identification. Lastly, investors will find it simpler to securely manage a variety of portfolios thanks to the integration of cross-chain and multi-asset custody, opening the door for wider mainstream use.
Pros & Cons
| Pros | Cons / Challenges |
|---|---|
| Enhanced Security: Multi-party computation (MPC) and threshold signatures reduce single-point-of-failure risks. | Complexity: Advanced cryptography and decentralized solutions can be harder to implement and maintain. |
| Decentralized Custody Options: Users retain control while leveraging professional infrastructure. | Regulatory Uncertainty: Cross-border regulations may lag behind technology, creating compliance challenges. |
| AI-Driven Monitoring: Automated threat detection can identify and prevent hacks in real time. | Cost: Advanced security systems, AI monitoring, and audits can be expensive, especially for smaller firms. |
| Cross-Chain & Multi-Asset Support: Easier portfolio management across different blockchains and assets. | Interoperability Risks: Managing multiple chains increases the risk of technical errors or vulnerabilities. |
| Institutional-Grade Compliance & Insurance: Greater adoption of global standards builds trust with investors. | Adoption Lag: Not all users or firms will be able to adopt advanced custody solutions immediately. |
| Scalability for Institutional Adoption: Supports large-scale crypto holdings safely. | Technology Reliance: Heavy reliance on software and network infrastructure may introduce new points of failure. |
Conclusion
Even while cryptocurrency presents previously unheard-of chances for development and innovation, many companies undervalue or avoid talking about the hidden risks associated with custody. These hazards, which range from software vulnerabilities, regulatory inadequacies, and human mistake, to single points of failure and inadequate essential backups, can result in permanent losses.
Ignoring them can have negative effects on a company’s finances, legal status, and reputation. Strong technical safeguards, sound operational procedures, personnel training, regulatory compliance, and insurance coverage are all necessary components of a multi-layered strategy to mitigate these risks.
Businesses may safeguard their assets, safeguard stakeholders, and foster trust in the quickly developing cryptocurrency ecosystem by proactively addressing these frequently disregarded custody issues.
FAQ
What are the most overlooked crypto custody risks for businesses?
Many businesses focus on external hacks but often overlook single points of failure, poor key backups, insider threats, human error, software vulnerabilities, and regulatory gaps—all of which can lead to major losses.
Why is single-point-of-failure such a big risk?
If access to crypto relies on a single key, device, or person, the loss, theft, or unavailability of that element can make funds irretrievable. Multi-signature setups help mitigate this risk.
How do software vulnerabilities impact custody?
Bugs, misconfigurations, or outdated systems in wallets, smart contracts, or custody platforms can be exploited by hackers, even if other security measures are strong.
Can human error really cause major losses?
Yes. Mistakes in transaction signing, wallet configuration, or key handling have caused significant crypto losses. Operational safeguards and employee training are essential.

