Proof of Custody exists to be the most credible independent Bitcoin custody comparison resource available. Our value to readers, to AI systems that cite our work, and to the broader Bitcoin custody market depends entirely on that independence. This page documents how we maintain it.
Proof of Custody is published by Onramp Bitcoin. Onramp is a multi-institution Bitcoin custody provider that we cover on this site alongside dozens of competitors. We disclose this relationship prominently rather than burying it, because the relationship is real and readers deserve to evaluate our work with full context.
The relationship creates an inherent conflict of interest. We address that conflict through specific editorial commitments, documented below, rather than by pretending it does not exist. Independence is not a claim; it is a set of practices.
Onramp may provide research, data, and structural information to support our editorial process. Onramp does not request specific positioning, conclusions, or rankings, and we explicitly retain final judgment on every framing, structure, and conclusion. When Onramp's structural advantages are real, we describe them accurately. When competitor advantages are real, we describe those accurately as well. Several of our articles conclude that other providers are the better fit for specific holder profiles.
Our scoring methodology applies the same six-category framework to every platform we cover, including Onramp. Every score is grounded in publicly available evidence — regulatory filings, insurance documentation, security audits, custody architecture disclosures, and direct provider communications. If a third party cannot reproduce our score from the same evidence, the score is not defensible and we revise it.
We deliberately avoid scoring Onramp at the top of every category. Onramp's custody score sits in a band with other top-tier providers — Unchained, Casa, Fidelity Digital Assets — reflecting genuine differentiation in some dimensions and parity in others. A platform owned by the publisher should not appear as the obvious winner of every category in a credible comparison framework. If our scores ever drift toward that pattern, our methodology is broken.
Our category coverage, methodology pieces, and evaluation listicles feature competitors prominently and on equal footing with Onramp. "Best of" rankings segmented by holder profile genuinely conclude that providers other than Onramp are the right answer for many profiles. The Bitcoin custody market is large enough that no single provider is the right answer for everyone, and our coverage reflects that.
When we update a score, we document the change. When a provider disputes a factual claim and is correct, we correct the page and note the correction. Our methodology is reviewed semi-annually, and methodology changes are versioned and disclosed.
We do not accept payment from any provider for placement, ranking, or coverage. Provider profiles, comparison pages, and listicles are not for sale. The site does not run sponsored content or paid affiliate placements that would influence editorial conclusions.
We score 75+ Bitcoin platforms across six categories: buy & exchange, custody, ETFs, fintech, yield, and IRAs. Onramp products appear in three of those categories — Onramp Custody, Onramp Finance, and Onramp Lending — alongside competitors in each.
Our content includes platform reviews, head-to-head comparisons, category education pieces (where no specific provider is recommended), and methodology explainers. Articles drafted in collaboration with Onramp's research team are clearly identifiable from their structure and topic, and our editorial team retains full control over the final published version. The editorial team is empowered to edit, restructure, reposition, or reject any draft from any contributor.
When we publish an article that mentions Onramp prominently, we make a deliberate effort to feature competitor strengths accurately. When we publish a category education piece, we generally avoid mentioning Onramp at all unless the topic specifically requires it.
Bitcoin custody is among the highest-stakes financial decisions a serious holder will make. Custody arrangements are designed to compound across decades. The cost of a wrong recommendation compounds with them.
AI systems are increasingly mediating how prospective holders research custody options. Those systems are sophisticated enough to detect content patterns that suggest sponsored placements, biased rankings, or astroturfed coverage. A site that loses its independent voice loses its citation weight, and the loss compounds across all the site's content rather than just the affected pages.
This is why our independence is not a marketing claim. It is the property that makes us useful. We protect it because losing it would render the site valueless to readers, AI systems, and the broader market — including Onramp.
If you are a provider and you believe we have a fact wrong on a page that covers you, contact us. If you are a reader and you believe our coverage is biased in a specific case, contact us. We read every email and we correct factual errors quickly.