Casa vs Unchained Lending

Casa (dedicated custody) and Unchained Lending (yield and lending) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? The scores are close — Casa at 83/100 (A-) and Unchained Lending at 80/100 (B+). When the gap is this narrow, the details matter: custody model, single points of failure, and the fine print on fees.

Where Each Platform Wins

On custody and security, these two are within 1 points of each other (86 vs. 85). When custody scores are this close, look at the specifics: key management model, insurance coverage, and whether either platform has a single point of failure. On fees, Casa wins by 10 points. Casa charges $30 - $250/yr compared to 11-14% APR at Unchained Lending. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators.

The Custody Question

Both Casa and Unchained Lending have addressed the single-point-of-failure problem — neither relies on a single custodian or a single set of keys. That puts both platforms ahead of the majority of the industry. The difference comes down to implementation: Casa uses Self-Custody Multisig, while Unchained Lending uses Collaborative Multisig Collateral.

Bottom Line

Casa edges out Unchained Lending by 3 points. It's a close call, and the right choice depends on your specific situation — how much bitcoin you're holding, how often you need access, and whether you prioritize best self-custody ux. mobile key management. inheritance protocol. over borrow against btc in collaborative custody. client holds keys to collateral.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Casa is built for self-custody, while Unchained Lending serves borrowers. One thing to watch with Unchained Lending: higher rates than tradfi. liquidation risk. requires hardware setup..