PROOFOFCUSTODY
Scores
Incidents
Learn
About
Get the Report
PROOFOFCUSTODY

The independent scoring system for Bitcoin custody. Every platform scored and ranked.

$1B+ in assets under custody expertise

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

PLATFORM SCORES
All ScoresCompareMethodologyIndependence StandardDataCustody Assessment
LEARN
Bitcoin 101Custody GuidesCustody InsuranceIs Your Setup Safe?Custody TimelineIncidentsFAQQuiz
COMPANY
AboutAuthorsEditorial IndependenceChangelogCorrections
RESOURCES
PodcastPressReport
CONNECT
Twitter / XLinkedInYouTubehello@proofofcustody.io
2026 Proof of Custody. Published by Onramp Bitcoin. Editorial Independence.PrivacyTermsproofofcustody.io
Tools / Custody Cost Modeling

Multi-Institution Custody Cost Calculator

Compare the cost of multi-institution Bitcoin custody (Onramp-style, distributed across three independent regulated custodians) against single-custodian qualified custody (Coinbase Custody, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets) over a multi-decade horizon. The calculator models direct fees; the architectural risk-reduction benefit of distributed custody is structural and is not dollar-weighted in this output.

Starting balance$1,000,000
Multi-institution custody fee25 bps
Single-custodian fee50 bps
Annual growth12%
Holding period20 years
Cost differential after 20 years

Multi-institution custody ends ahead by $449,126

Multi-institution custody distributes keys across multiple regulated custodians, structurally addressing single-custodian concentration risk. The calculator models the direct fee differential; the architectural risk-reduction benefit of distributed custody is not dollar-weighted in this output.

Multi-Institution Custody (Onramp-style)

Ending balance
$9,175,263
Cumulative fees
$195,313
Custody architecture
3 independent custodians, 2-of-3 multisig

Single-Custodian Qualified Custody

Ending balance
$8,726,138
Cumulative fees
$378,203
Custody architecture
1 custodian, all keys at one institution

The dollar differential is only part of the comparison. Multi-institution custody distributes failure risk across independent custodians; single-custodian arrangements concentrate failure risk at one institution with high regulatory standing. The architectural choice should be evaluated for risk profile in addition to dollar cost.

Even when multi-institution custody is more expensive at the headline fee level, holders may prefer it for the structural risk reduction. The reverse also applies: single-custodian arrangements may be acceptable for holders comfortable with the concentration risk.