Bitcoin got to $2 trillion with no one able to credibly guarantee it would be there tomorrow.

That's not a failure of Bitcoin. It's a failure of custody.

We've spent 17 years solving the wrong problem. The industry obsesses over price, adoption, regulation, and ETFs while ignoring the one question that determines whether any of it matters: where are the keys?

Today, the vast majority of Bitcoin is held in one of two ways. You can leave it with a single custodian, whether that's an exchange, an ETF, or a bank, and accept that your wealth depends entirely on their competence, honesty, and solvency. Or you can hold it yourself, carrying the burden of key management, physical security, and the knowledge that if something happens to you, your family may never recover those assets.

These are two-dimensional solutions to a three-dimensional problem. The same trade-offs humans have faced with gold for 5,000 years. Trust the vault, or bury it in your yard. Bitcoin was supposed to be better than this.

The insight is simple. Three is better than one. When you distribute keys across multiple independent, regulated institutions, each legally bound to act at your direction and none capable of moving assets unilaterally, you eliminate the single point of failure that has defined custody since the invention of money.

This is not theoretical. We custody over $1 billion in Bitcoin this way for clients ranging from individuals to pensions to family offices managing hundreds of millions. We've watched the industry cycle through Mt. Gox, Celsius, BlockFi, Genesis, and FTX. Each one a reminder that single points of failure are not a matter of if, but when.

Proof of Custody exists because we believe the most important question in Bitcoin is the one most platforms don't want you to ask. Not "what's the fee?" Not "how's the app?" But rather: what happens to my Bitcoin if my custodian fails tomorrow?

We score every platform against that question. Not because custody is the only thing that matters, but because nothing else matters if custody fails.

We include ourselves in these rankings. We weight custody at 35% of the total score because we believe that's what it deserves, and we publish our methodology so anyone can challenge it. If our custody architecture weakens, our score drops. If a competitor builds something better, they'll outrank us. That's the commitment.

That's what proof of custody means. Not a slogan. A standard.