Scores last updated
Fit follows the custody model, not the brand.
You hold most keys, the provider holds one, and no single party can move funds alone.
One company holds the keys; you hold a claim on the company.
Unchained (exchange and brokerage) and Strike (Global) (fintech) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? Unchained scores 84/100 (A-) versus 70/100 (B-) for Strike (Global). The 14-point spread is meaningful — it usually comes down to custody architecture and fee structure.
Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 23 points toward Unchained (88 vs. 65). Unchained eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Strike (Global) relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. On fees, Unchained wins by 8 points. Unchained charges 1% + trading spread compared to ~0.3% spread at Strike (Global). Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators. Unchained's strongest advantage is in transparency (84 vs. 55), where Unchained's approach to proof-of-reserves and public documentation makes a measurable difference.
Here's the key difference: Unchained has no single point of failure (Collaborative Multisig), while Strike (Global) does (Custodial). 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.
Unchained edges out Strike (Global) by 14 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 buy directly into collaborative custody. ira, lending, and inheritance built in. over global remittances. near-zero fee btc buys. lightning-native.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Unchained is built for self-sovereign, while Strike (Global) serves international. One thing to watch with Strike (Global): custodial. limited markets. not designed for large holdings..
Based on our six-category scoring methodology, Unchained scores higher at 84/100 compared to 70/100. The biggest differentiator is custody security, which accounts for 35% of the overall score. However, the right choice depends on your individual needs — review the category breakdown above.
Unchained scored 88/100 on custody and security in our methodology. It has no single point of failure, distributing custody across multiple entities. Its custody model is classified as Collaborative Multisig. Always verify these details and do your own research.
Yes. Strike (Global) uses a Custodial model, which means a single compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. This is a structural concern for long-term holders.
Unchained charges 1% + trading spread. Strike (Global) charges ~0.3% spread. Unchained scored 78/100 on fees versus 70/100 for Strike (Global) in our methodology.
Unchained does not advertise a dedicated inheritance feature. Strike (Global) does not advertise a dedicated inheritance feature. Match the mechanism, whether beneficiary designation, trust titling, or key inheritance, to your estate plan.
Unchained's custody insurance is not publicly disclosed. Strike (Global)'s custody insurance is not publicly disclosed. Custody insurance covers specific named events up to shared limits, not price loss or every failure mode. Verify current terms before relying on coverage.
Unchained involves the holder in key control. Strike (Global) manages keys for you; you hold none. This is the core structural difference to weigh.