Onramp vs Casa: A Comparison of Two Bitcoin Custody Philosophies

Choosing between Onramp and Casa is less a comparison of two competing products than a decision between two fundamentally different philosophies of Bitcoin custody. One provider treats custody as an institutional infrastructure problem to be solved through distributed regulated entities; the other treats custody as a sovereignty exercise to be supported with professional tooling while leaving the holder in direct possession of their keys.

Key Takeaways

• Onramp and Casa represent two distinct philosophical approaches to Bitcoin custody and should be evaluated as fits for different holder profiles rather than ranked head-to-head
• Casa is collaborative self-custody: the client holds the majority of keys, manages multiple hardware devices across geographic locations, and retains direct personal sovereignty
• Onramp is multi-institution custody: three independent regulated custodians (Onramp, BitGo, Coincover) each hold one key in a 2-of-3 multisig, with the client holding zero keys
• Casa is the stronger fit for self-custody purists, holders for whom personal possession of keys is non-negotiable, and holders requiring multi-asset support
• Onramp is the stronger fit for holders who want institutional architectural diversification without personal operational burden, integrated financial services, and formal beneficiary designation with no waiting period
• Many high-net-worth Bitcoiners use both providers in combination
• The choice depends primarily on the holder’s philosophical orientation toward key custody

The Two Custody Models

Casa: Collaborative Self-Custody

Casa operates as a collaborative custody coordinator. The client holds the majority of keys in a multisig vault — two of three at the Standard tier and three of five at the Premium tier — with Casa holding a single key as a co-signer. The client is the primary custodian of their own Bitcoin in both the technical and philosophical sense; Casa’s role is to provide professional support around an arrangement that the client controls.

The defining characteristic of this model is that the holder retains direct cryptographic possession of their Bitcoin. Casa cannot move funds unilaterally, and even Casa’s full cooperation is insufficient without the holder’s keys.

Onramp: Multi-Institution Custody

Onramp operates as a multi-institution custody coordinator. Three independent regulated custodians — Onramp, BitGo, and Coincover — each hold one key in a 2-of-3 multisig, with the client holding zero keys. Transactions require signatures from two of the three institutions.

The defining characteristic of this model is that the holder does not bear personal responsibility for hardware devices, seed phrase backups, or signing operations.

These models are not competing implementations of the same idea. They reflect different beliefs about which risks are most material in long-term Bitcoin custody.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Custody Architecture

• Casa: 2-of-3 multisig (Standard) or 3-of-5 multisig (Premium); client holds the majority of keys; supports Coldcard, Ledger, Trezor, and Foundation Passport
• Onramp: 2-of-3 multisig with three independent regulated custodians each holding one key; client holds zero keys

Holder Key Responsibility

• Casa: Client manages multiple hardware wallets across geographic locations, maintains seed phrase backups, performs signing operations
• Onramp: None

This is the most consequential single difference between the two providers.

Regulatory Standing and Insurance

• Casa: Operates as a software and services company supporting client-held multisig vaults. Because the client holds the majority of keys, Casa does not provide insurance coverage on client Bitcoin holdings; the holder bears the risk associated with the keys they personally hold
• Onramp: Custody is performed by three regulated custodians, with the arrangement covered by Lloyd’s of London insurance covering custody operations

The comparison here is not a clean apples-to-apples evaluation, because the two providers occupy different regulatory categories. Casa’s lighter regulatory footprint is consistent with its self-custody orientation.

Pricing Structure

• Casa: Flat annual fees ranging from approximately $250 to $21,000 depending on tier; Casa Inheritance offered as a separate $250/year add-on
• Onramp: $250/month flat fee for the core offering; basis-point pricing for Private tier accounts beginning at 0.48% annually for 10-25 BTC positions

Casa’s flat-fee structure can be more cost-effective at very large position sizes for holders who require custody only and want to retain operational responsibility. Casa’s fees reflect the narrower scope of services included and the operational responsibility that remains with the holder.

Service Breadth

• Casa: Custody and inheritance only. Casa has deliberately avoided trading, lending, IRAs, yield products, and rewards cards as a matter of philosophical commitment
• Onramp: Integrated platform combining custody, trading, IRA structuring, Bitcoin-backed lending, and inheritance planning

These are not gaps in Casa’s product; they are choices.