This article highlights the best reinsurance options for Crypto Custodians in 2026. As digital asset custody rises, custodians encounter incremental risks due to cybercrime, theft, and the changing regulatory landscape.
Reinsurance helps to create institutional stability and build confidence with investors. By reviewing the leading reinsurance markets, such as Lloyd’s of London and Munich Re, amongst others, custodians gain insight into how other markets are developing capacity to protect digital assets against potential losses.
Key Points
| Provider | Coverage Focus | Key Strengths |
|---|---|---|
| Lloyd’s of London | Custody + crime insurance | Syndicate model, crypto‑specific policies, global credibility. |
| Munich Re | Custody, cyber, operational risk | Strong actuarial modeling, institutional trust. |
| Swiss Re | Custody + cyber risk | Global reinsurance leader, strong balance sheet. |
| Hannover Re | Custody + slashing protection | Tailored blockchain risk underwriting. |
| Aon Digital Assets | Custody + exchange risk | Brokered reinsurance pools, institutional advisory. |
| Marsh McLennan | Custody + operational risk | Global broker, crypto‑specific reinsurance programs. |
| Guy Carpenter | Custody + systemic risk | Specialty reinsurance structuring, institutional focus. |
| Bermuda Reinsurers | Custody + catastrophe pools | Offshore flexibility, crypto‑friendly jurisdiction. |
| Tokio Marine | Custody + cyber | Asia‑based, strong institutional partnerships. |
| SCOR | Custody + operational resilience | French reinsurer, strong actuarial modeling for digital assets. |
1. Lloyd’s of London
Lloyd’s of London adopts a marketplace approach over being an insurer. For digital asset risk exposures, digital asset custodians have access to syndicates. Lloyd’s of London’s coverage model supports layered protection supporting cyber liability, crime, and custodial asset protection.

With respect to capacity, Lloyd’s of London’s syndicates combine resources to support large exposures, making Lloyd’s of London an attractive option for custodians of billions. Lloyd’s of London’s geographic scope is international, with Lloyd’s licenses spanning more than 200 jurisdictions, creating adequate licensing for custodial activities.
Lloyd’s of London’s flexibility in creating policies for differing custody models balances financial risk and emerging blockchain risk. Of the reinsurers analyzed, Lloyd’s of London, in the middle of the pack, does an excellent job of customizing reinsurance solutions for digital asset custodians.
Lloyd’s of London
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Marketplace model | Access to multiple syndicates | Complexity in policy structuring |
| Coverage flexibility | Tailored digital asset protection | Requires broker mediation |
| Capacity pooling | Large institutional support | Syndicate variability |
| Global licenses | Coverage in 200+ territories | Regulatory complexity |
| Cyber liability | Strong cyber risk focus | Premiums can be high |
| Custodial theft | Specialized protection | Limited standardization |
| Bespoke policies | Custom solutions for custodians | Longer underwriting process |
| Reputation | Historic credibility | Conservative approach |
| Innovation | Adapts to blockchain risks | Slower adoption than niche reinsurers |
2. Munich Re
Munich Re is the reinsurer of choice for conservative approach risk management and underwriting. Its coverage model combines custody liability, operational risk, and cyber risk to provide protection for system compromise or theft. Capacity is at the upper end of the market and can support large institutional custodians and exchanges.

The geographic scope extends across Europe, North America and Asia. Risk management standards are consistent across its global operations. For digital asset custodians, Munich Re’s advantage is in its actuarial analysis and modeling for the unique risk of cryptocurrencies.
Midway, Munich Re has the most capacity and global reach of any reinsurer, making it the most important reinsurer for institutional digital asset custody.
Munich Re
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Technical expertise | Precise actuarial modeling | Conservative underwriting |
| Coverage breadth | Cyber + operational + custodial | Less flexible customization |
| High capacity | Supports large custodians | Premiums reflect scale |
| Global reach | Europe, US, Asia presence | Regional compliance challenges |
| Risk modeling | Advanced analytics | Slower innovation |
| Institutional focus | Trusted by banks/exchanges | Less suited for startups |
| Balance sheet strength | Strong financial backing | Higher entry requirements |
| Regulatory alignment | Meets global standards | Complex documentation |
| Stability | Long-term reliability | Less agile in emerging risks |
3. Swiss Re
Swiss Re focuses on the innovation of its coverage model by developing policies for blockchain-related cases and cyber crimes that expose custody to a variety of vulnerabilities. Swiss Re’s coverage includes the theft of digital assets, failures of smart contracts, and negligent mismanagement of custody, ensuring wide coverage.

Swiss Re’s capacity is robust, sustained by the group’s ability to absorb a significant portion of the loss and by the strength of Swiss Re’s balance sheet. Swiss Re’s coverage is Global, especially in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Given the diversity of Swiss Re’s geographic coverage, it is able to serve custody firms operating in multiple jurisdictions.
Swiss Re also engages in research partnerships so it can better understand the risks of crypto, improving its underwriting. Midway, Swiss Re offers innovative coverage and capacity together, and thus serves custody firms with digital asset exposure in a research-based, modern way.
Swiss Re
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Innovative coverage | Smart contract & blockchain focus | Emerging risk pricing uncertainty |
| Global presence | Europe, Americas, Asia | Regional premium variations |
| Strong capacity | Large institutional support | Limited niche flexibility |
| Research partnerships | Crypto risk studies | Slow rollout of findings |
| Cybercrime protection | Comprehensive digital theft cover | May exclude smaller custodians |
| Custodial liability | Broad custodial risk cover | Complex underwriting |
| Balance sheet | Strong financial resilience | Higher premiums |
| Customization | Tailored policies | Longer approval cycles |
| Reputation | Global credibility | Conservative in adoption pace |
4. Hannover Re
Hannover Re has an innovative approach to coverage, developing flexible models for custody of digital assets. Hannover Re’s coverage addresses operational risk and cyber, and focuses on custodial theft, with an emphasis on loss-based modules.

With partnerships, Hannover Re is able to add capacity for larger custodial exposures. Hannover Re’s geographic scope is also flexible and includes Europe and North America, with an emphasis on crypto hubs.
Hannover Re’s strength is its approach to custody rather than the size of the firm. Midway, Hannover Re has the flexibility to provide custodial firms with reinsurance that balances innovation and capacity with a coverage footprint that supports firm custody operations worldwide.
Hannover Re
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Modular coverage | Flexible solutions | Less standardized |
| Cyber liability | Strong digital risk focus | Limited global scale |
| Custodial theft | Specialized protection | Smaller institutional reach |
| Operational risk | Covers system failures | May require co-partners |
| Capacity | Solid but mid-tier | Not as high as Munich/Swiss |
| Global footprint | Europe, Asia, US | Limited in emerging markets |
| Innovation | Supports niche custodians | Less suited for mega custodians |
| Partnerships | Collaborative programs | Reliance on co-insurers |
| Adaptability | Agile underwriting | Less financial depth |
5. Aon Digital Assets
Aon Digital Assets offers customized brokerage and reinsurance solutions built specifically for crypto custodians. Aon Digital Assets’ coverage model integrates theft, cyber liability, and custodial asset protection and can be structured through Lloyd’s syndicates or global reinsurers. While capacity is dependent on partnerships, Aon’s extensive network allows it to secure significant limits for institutional clients.

With Aon’s presence in over 120 countries, custodians can access compliant coverage across an array of jurisdictions. Aon also provides advisory services and helps crypto custodians assess risks and build optimized reinsurance programs. Currently, Aon Digital Assets is one of the only broker-based solutions in the market that combines tailored coverage models with global capacity through its strong and extensive reinsurer partnerships.
Aon Digital Assets
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Broker-driven | Access to multiple reinsurers | Dependent on partnerships |
| Coverage design | Tailored custodial policies | Limited direct underwriting |
| Global presence | 120+ countries | Broker fees add cost |
| Cyber liability | Strong focus | Reliant on syndicates |
| Custodial theft | Specialized structuring | May vary by reinsurer |
| Advisory services | Risk assessment support | Not a reinsurer itself |
| Capacity leverage | Secures high limits | Dependent on market appetite |
| Regulatory compliance | Global alignment | Complex broker coordination |
| Innovation | Crypto-specific programs | Reliant on external reinsurers |
6. Marsh McLennan
Marsh McLennan offers fully integrated brokerage and reinsurance services built specifically for crypto custodians to manage their risks. Marsh McLennan’s coverage model addresses theft of digital assets and cyber-related losses as well as custodial liability obligations and is structured in accordance with the regulatory framework.

Institutional custodians can have high limits of capacity due to relationships Marsh McLennan has developed with a number of leading reinsurers. With operations in over 130 countries, Marsh McLennan has the capacity to provide custodians with compliant coverage worldwide. Marsh McLennan’s advisory services provide crypto custodians with valuable consultative services to address the regulatory frameworks.
Currently, Marsh McLennan combines global reach, strong capacity, and tailored coverage models, making it the broker of choice for reinsurance solutions for crypto custodians.
Marsh McLennan
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Broker expertise | Global leader | Broker fees |
| Coverage breadth | Cyber, theft, liability | Dependent on reinsurers |
| Global reach | 130+ countries | Complex compliance |
| Advisory services | Regulatory consulting | Longer structuring |
| Capacity | Secures large limits | Reliant on partnerships |
| Custodial focus | Tailored programs | Limited direct underwriting |
| Risk management | Strong consulting | Higher costs |
| Innovation | Crypto-specific solutions | Dependent on reinsurer adoption |
| Reputation | Trusted globally | Broker dependency |
7. Guy Carpenter
Guy Carpenter focuses on customized reinsurance brokerage for crypto custodians. Involving cyber liability, custodial theft, and operational risk, Guy Carpenter’s coverage is structured through layered programs. With Guy Carpenter’s relationships with primary reinsurers, substantial limits are available for institutional custodians.

Coverage is available throughout the world. Strongest in North America, Europe, and Asia, Guy Carpenter positions itself to offer coverage across the major crypto markets. In addition, Guy Carpenter pursues a strong analytics focus, using analogous crypto risk modeling.
Midway, Guy Carpenter develops data analytics focused, innovative reinsurance solutions targeted to meet the needs of institutional digital asset custodians.
Guy Carpenter
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Broker-driven | Access to reinsurers | No direct underwriting |
| Coverage design | Layered programs | Complexity in structuring |
| Global presence | Strong in US, EU, Asia | Broker fees |
| Analytics | Advanced risk modeling | Dependent on reinsurer adoption |
| Cyber liability | Strong coverage | Reliant on syndicates |
| Custodial theft | Specialized structuring | May vary by reinsurer |
| Capacity | Secures high limits | Dependent on partnerships |
| Innovation | Data-driven solutions | Broker dependency |
| Reputation | Established credibility | Indirect coverage |
8. Bermuda Reinsurers
Bermuda reinsurers’ flexibility in underwriting nascent risks, such as crypto custody, complements the structure of some of their programs. Similar coverage models include cyber liability, custodial theft, and operational risk. Capacity is notable, given the presence of some of the world’s largest reinsurers operating out of Bermuda.

Offering coverage on a Bermuda Form is international, including North America, Europe and Asia. An innovative regulatory environment enables the concentration of crypto-related reinsurance in Bermuda. Midway, Bermuda reinsurers leverage their strong capacity, global reach and creative coverage models to adopt a leading role in re/insurance of digital asset custodians.
Bermuda Reinsurers
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Innovative coverage | Flexible underwriting | Regulatory differences |
| Cyber liability | Strong focus | Premium variability |
| Custodial theft | Specialized programs | Less standardized |
| Operational risk | Broad coverage | Limited global offices |
| Capacity | Large institutional support | Regional concentration |
| Global reach | US, EU, Asia | Less presence in emerging markets |
| Regulatory environment | Favorable for innovation | Complexity in compliance |
| Partnerships | Collaborative programs | Reliance on brokers |
| Reputation | Hub for reinsurance | Less historic credibility |
9. Tokio Marine
Tokio Marine provides coverage models to custodians that cover cyber liability, custodial theft and operational risk. Tokio Marine’s financial strength and partnerships with global reinsurers enables solid capacity. Geographic focus is in Asia, with active operations in Europe and North America.

Tokio Marine collaborates with other companies to enhance its understanding of blockchain, improve its risk assessment, and strengthen its underwriting. For custodians, Tokio Marine offers coverage with regional specialization in Asia. Midway, Tokio Marine offers geographic specialization in Asia, making it an important reinsurer for custodians active in Asia.
Tokio Marine
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Coverage breadth | Cyber, theft, liability | Regional specialization |
| Capacity | Strong financial backing | Smaller global scale |
| Asia focus | Strong regional expertise | Limited Western presence |
| Global expansion | Growing EU/US footprint | Still developing |
| Innovation | Blockchain partnerships | Slower rollout |
| Custodial liability | Tailored programs | Limited institutional reach |
| Cybercrime protection | Strong coverage | Premiums vary |
| Regulatory compliance | Strong in Asia | Complex outside Asia |
| Reputation | Trusted insurer | Less global dominance |
10. SCOR
SCOR integrates innovation and risk modeling in its coverage model to provide protection for custodians from cyber risks, custodial theft, and failures in operational due diligence. Innovation is complemented with solid financials driven by global capacity, reinforced by SCOR’s ability to underwrite large, wide exposures.

SCOR’s reach extends across Europe, North America, and Asia, providing custodians with coverage on a worldwide basis. SCOR has undertaken special research to identify and understand emerging risks, with particular emphasis on blockchain risks.
For custodians, innovation and strength are strategically aligned, making SCOR a preferred partner for reinsurance. In the moderate segment, strong capacity, global reach, and special models make SCOR a reinsurer of choice for digital asset custodians.
SCOR
| Feature | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Innovative coverage | Blockchain risk focus | Emerging risk uncertainty |
| Capacity | Strong balance sheet | Premiums reflect scale |
| Global reach | EU, US, Asia | Regional compliance challenges |
| Risk modeling | Advanced analytics | Slower adoption |
| Cyber liability | Comprehensive coverage | May exclude startups |
| Custodial theft | Broad protection | Complex underwriting |
| Operational risk | Strong coverage | Longer approval cycles |
| Research | Crypto risk studies | Slow rollout |
| Reputation | Global credibility | Conservative pace |
Conclusion
As the crypto industry continues its rapid expansion and digital asset management becomes more complex, crypto custodians are expected to confront larger cyber risks and greater scrutiny from different authorities in 2026. Lloyd’s of London, Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, Aon Digital Assets, Marsh McLennan, Guy Carpenter, Bermuda Reinsurers, Tokio Marine, and SCOR are among the reinsurers and brokers with different advantages in the coverage and underwriting of risks and different geographical areas of operation.
When selecting a reinsurance partner, custodians are more concerned about the partner’s ability to adverse scale blockchain risks and offer global coverage than about the partner’s financial protection. Swiss Re, MC, Lloyd’s, Munich Re or others combine to create the framework for risk management of digital asset custody. Selecting an appropriate reinsurer creates confidence for custodians to meet the evolving requirements of safeguarding crypto assets.
FAQ
What is reinsurance for crypto custodians?
Reinsurance provides custodians with financial protection against large losses from cybercrime, theft, or operational failures. It ensures stability by transferring risk to global reinsurers.
Why do crypto custodians need reinsurance?
Custodians manage billions in digital assets. Reinsurance safeguards them against systemic risks, regulatory demands, and unexpected breaches, ensuring trust and compliance.
Which reinsurers offer the largest capacity?
Global leaders like Munich Re, Swiss Re, and Lloyd’s of London provide the highest underwriting capacity, supporting institutional custodians with large exposures.
How does geographic scope affect coverage?
Custodians operating across multiple jurisdictions need reinsurers with global reach. Firms like Marsh McLennan, SCOR, and Tokio Marine ensure compliance worldwide.


