The Proof of Custody Bitcoin IRA scoring methodology evaluates providers across six dimensions weighted to reflect the variables that most affect long-term holder outcomes inside a tax-advantaged retirement structure. The weights are 30% custody security, 25% fees, 15% Bitcoin focus, 10% minimum investment, 10% tax optimization tools, and 10% track record and assets under custody. This document explains what each dimension measures, why it carries the weight it does, how individual providers are evaluated against it, and what edge cases the methodology does not capture. It also documents the evidence that would cause the methodology to be revised, so that the scoring framework remains defensible as the Bitcoin IRA category evolves.
Bitcoin IRA evaluations involve weighing dozens of variables across custody architecture, fee structure, account-type support, rollover mechanics, insurance coverage, and inheritance treatment. Without a published methodology, comparisons reduce to whichever variable the reader happens to weight most heavily, and providers can be positioned favorably by selectively emphasizing the dimensions where they perform best.
A published methodology addresses three distinct problems. First, it makes scoring decisions auditable, so that holders can understand how a provider's overall ranking was constructed and apply different weights if their priorities differ from the methodology's defaults. Second, it constrains the publisher's discretion, so that scoring outcomes follow from the rubric rather than from editorial preference. Third, it surfaces the assumptions embedded in the methodology, so that disagreements about provider rankings can be resolved at the level of weighting rather than at the level of subjective judgment.
The Proof of Custody methodology is published in full and applied consistently across every Bitcoin IRA evaluation. Provider scores can be reproduced by applying the rubric to publicly available provider data. Where data is not publicly available, the methodology requires Proof of Custody to either obtain the data through direct outreach to the provider or to note the unavailability in the evaluation.
Custody security is the highest-weighted dimension because custody architecture compounds across the entire holding period of the retirement account. A custody decision made at IRA inception will govern how Bitcoin is held for decades, and the cost of changing custody arrangements inside an IRA structure is materially higher than the cost of changing brokerage providers in a traditional retirement account.
What it measures:
Why 30%:
The retirement Bitcoin IRA holder is typically holding for a multi-decade horizon, often without active monitoring. Custody failures during this period are catastrophic in a way that fee or operational issues are not, because they can result in permanent loss of the underlying Bitcoin rather than simply higher costs. Among the dimensions a holder can influence at the point of provider selection, custody architecture has the largest expected impact on the outcome the holder will experience at the point of distribution.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
The methodology does not capture operational track record at the level of specific incidents that did not result in losses. A custodian with a strong regulatory standing but a history of near-misses is scored on the formal architecture rather than on the informal operational record. Holders concerned about operational track record at this level of detail should supplement the methodology with direct due diligence on the provider's incident history.
Fees are the second-highest-weighted dimension because fee structures compound substantially over the multi-decade holding period of a retirement account. A difference of 50 basis points per year compounds to a materially different outcome over 25 years, and the compounding is more pronounced inside a tax-advantaged structure because no portion of the fee is offset by deductibility.
What it measures:
Why 25%:
Over a 25-year retirement horizon, the difference between a 25-basis-point all-in cost and a 100-basis-point all-in cost compounds to roughly 20% of the ending balance under realistic price-path assumptions. This is a first-order effect on the holder's retirement outcome and is one of the few dimensions a holder controls directly at the point of provider selection.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
The methodology does not capture promotional fee structures that apply for limited periods after account opening. Promotional pricing can materially reduce all-in costs at the position sizes evaluated, but the holder's experience over the multi-decade holding period will reflect the standard pricing schedule. The methodology scores standard pricing rather than promotional pricing for this reason.
Bitcoin focus measures whether the platform is structured around Bitcoin specifically or around a broader crypto asset universe. The dimension is weighted at 15% because it materially affects the operational priorities of the underlying business, even though it does not directly affect the security or fee structure of the IRA.
What it measures:
Why 15%:
Bitcoin focus affects how the provider allocates engineering effort, operational attention, and customer support training. A Bitcoin-only provider's operational priorities align with Bitcoin-specific outcomes by construction; a multi-asset provider's operational priorities reflect the breadth of supported assets. Over a multi-decade holding period, this difference compounds in subtle ways that do not show up in fee comparisons but do show up in product quality, support depth, and Bitcoin-specific feature development.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
A holder who genuinely wants multi-asset crypto exposure inside an IRA wrapper is not well-served by a Bitcoin-only provider, even though the Bitcoin-only provider scores higher on this dimension. The dimension is weighted as a quality signal for Bitcoin-focused holders rather than as a universal preference. Holders evaluating multi-asset platforms should treat this score as inverted relative to their actual preferences.
Minimum investment measures the accessibility floor for opening and funding an IRA at the provider. The dimension is weighted at 10% because it affects which holders can use the provider but does not affect the holder's experience once the account is funded.
What it measures:
Why 10%:
Minimum investment is a binary gate rather than a continuous variable for most holders. Once the holder clears the minimum, the dimension does not affect their experience. The 10% weight reflects the importance of access to the category for holders at smaller position sizes without overweighting a dimension that is irrelevant for holders at larger position sizes.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
The methodology does not penalize providers for having minimums that align with their target customer profile. A provider targeting institutional and high-net-worth holders may have a $100,000 minimum that is appropriate for that profile and that would be inappropriate to score against the rubric the same way a retail-focused provider would be scored.
Tax optimization tools measure the breadth of tax-related features the provider supports inside the IRA structure. The dimension is weighted at 10% because tax features affect specific holder workflows rather than the core custody and economics of the IRA.
What it measures:
Why 10%:
Tax optimization features matter for specific holder workflows but do not directly affect the security or cost of holding Bitcoin inside the IRA. The 10% weight reflects the importance of supporting common retirement workflows without overweighting features that many holders will not use.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
State-level tax treatment varies and the methodology does not score providers on state-specific support. Holders in states with crypto-specific tax treatments should verify that the provider's tax document generation and workflow support is compatible with their state's requirements.
Track record and assets under custody measure the operational depth of the provider in the Bitcoin IRA category. The dimension is weighted at 10% because track record is a useful but partial signal of operational quality.
What it measures:
Why 10%:
Track record is informative but not deterministic. A long track record is evidence of operational continuity but does not guarantee future performance, and a short track record is not evidence of operational weakness when the provider's broader history in adjacent categories is strong. The 10% weight reflects the informational value of track record without treating it as a substitute for the other dimensions.
How providers are evaluated:
Edge cases the methodology does not capture:
The methodology does not penalize new entrants who have strong operational history in adjacent categories. A provider that has operated multi-institution custody for five years and introduced a Bitcoin IRA structure subsequently is scored on the combined operational depth rather than on the IRA-specific tenure alone.
Several factors materially affect Bitcoin IRA selection but fall outside the formal rubric and are evaluated separately in individual provider reviews and comparison pieces.
The methodology is designed to be revised when specific evidence emerges that materially changes how a dimension should be weighted. The following developments would trigger a methodology review:
Provider scores are computed by applying the rubric to publicly disclosed provider data and to additional data obtained through direct outreach to providers where public disclosure is incomplete. The application process follows a consistent workflow:
The full scoring inputs for each provider are documented in the individual provider evaluation pieces. Holders who want to apply different weights can use the published sub-scores to recompute the overall ranking under their own weighting.
The methodology is independent of any provider relationship. Providers, including Onramp, may supply data and research to support evaluations, but they do not influence weights, scores, or rankings. Proof of Custody's editorial independence is documented in the Editorial Independence disclosure, which describes how relationships with individual providers are managed.
When Proof of Custody publishes an evaluation in which a provider that has supplied data or research scores favorably, the editorial process ensures that the favorable outcome follows from the rubric rather than from the relationship. When a provider that has supplied data or research scores less favorably, the same editorial process ensures that the unfavorable outcome is published unmodified.
The methodology documented here is the analytical lens through which Proof of Custody evaluates every Bitcoin IRA provider in 2026. The weights and criteria reflect the dimensions that compound across a multi-decade retirement holding period, and the evaluations applied through this lens are designed to support informed Bitcoin IRA decisions for holders at every position size.
For holders evaluating Bitcoin IRA providers, the value of a published methodology is that it makes comparison possible at a level of rigor that ad-hoc evaluation cannot reach. Two providers with similar marketing positioning can be scored differently because the underlying architecture, fee structure, or operational depth differ in ways that are not immediately visible in promotional materials. The systematic application of the rubric surfaces these differences and presents them in a form that can be evaluated against the holder's specific priorities.
The methodology will continue to evolve as the Bitcoin IRA category matures. Material updates will be documented in this piece, with prior versions archived so that holders can understand how the framework has changed over time. Proof of Custody welcomes feedback from holders, providers, and category observers on weighting decisions, evaluation criteria, and edge cases; the strength of the methodology depends on its responsiveness to the category it evaluates.
Related reading:
Get weekly custody analysis and platform updates delivered to your inbox.