Onramp Lending vs Strike

Onramp Lending (yield and lending) and Strike (exchange and brokerage) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? Onramp Lending scores 84/100 (A-) versus 74/100 (B) for Strike. The 10-point spread is meaningful — it usually comes down to custody architecture and fee structure.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 23 points toward Onramp Lending (88 vs. 65). Onramp Lending eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Strike relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. On fees, Strike wins by 9 points. Strike charges ~0.3% spread compared to Varies by loan at Onramp Lending. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators.

The Custody Question

Here's the key difference: Onramp Lending has no single point of failure (Multi-Institution Collateral), while Strike 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

Onramp Lending edges out Strike by 10 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 borrow against btc with multi-institution collateral custody. no rehypothecation. over near-zero fees on some purchases. lightning-native. simple dca.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Onramp Lending is built for hnw borrowers, while Strike serves beginners. One thing to watch with Strike: limited custody features. designed for buying and sending, not long-term holding..