Casa vs SALT Lending

Casa (dedicated custody) and SALT Lending (yield and lending) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? In our scoring model, Casa holds a commanding lead at 83/100 (A-) compared to SALT Lending at 50/100 (C-). That 33-point gap reflects real, measurable differences in how each platform handles custody, fees, and transparency.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 61 points toward Casa (86 vs. 25). Casa eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while SALT Lending relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. On fees, Casa wins by 30 points. Casa charges $30 - $250/yr compared to Varies by LTV at SALT Lending. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators. SALT Lending stands out on features (70 vs. 82), reflecting SALT Lending's product breadth and tooling.

The Custody Question

Here's the key difference: Casa has no single point of failure (Self-Custody Multisig), while SALT Lending does (Single Custodian). This matters because a single-point-of-failure model means one compromised entity — whether through a hack, insolvency, or government action — could result in total loss of funds. History has proven this risk is not theoretical. FTX, Celsius, and BlockFi all represented single points of failure for their users.

Bottom Line

Casa is the clear choice here, outscoring SALT Lending by 33 points across our six-category methodology. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Casa is built for self-custody, while SALT Lending serves borrowers. One thing to watch with SALT Lending: past operational issues. single custodian. regulatory concerns.. The data speaks for itself — but always verify our methodology and do your own due diligence before moving bitcoin to any platform.