Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.crossmint.com/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
This page has been updated for Wallets SDK V1. If you are using the previous version,
see the previous version docs or the V1 migration guide.
What Is Custody?
Custody, in the context of digital assets, refers to who has the ability to authorize transactions on a wallet. It is not about where the wallet “lives” (it lives onchain) but about who holds the keys that can move assets. The question is straightforward: can your organization unilaterally sign a transaction on this wallet?- If yes — the wallet is custodial. Your organization is the custodian.
- If no, only the end user can — the wallet is non-custodial (also called self-custodial)
- If both parties must cooperate, or different operations require different parties — the wallet uses a hybrid model
Why Custody Matters
Custody classification affects multiple dimensions of your product:| Dimension | Impact |
|---|---|
| Regulatory compliance | Many jurisdictions impose licensing requirements on custodial wallet providers. Non-custodial wallets generally face fewer regulatory obligations because the provider never controls user assets. |
| Liability | A custodian is responsible for safeguarding assets. If a custodial wallet is compromised, the custodian may bear liability. Non-custodial providers shift this responsibility to the end user. |
| User trust | Some users prefer self-custody for sovereignty and privacy. Others prefer custodial solutions for simplicity and recoverability. Your audience determines which model builds more trust. |
| Operational control | Custodial wallets let your organization enforce business rules — spending limits, approval workflows, compliance checks — at the signing layer. Non-custodial wallets delegate all authorization to the user. |
| Recovery | In custodial models, your organization can recover access to a wallet using its server keys. In non-custodial models, recovery depends entirely on the user’s recovery signer (email OTP, phone OTP, or external wallet). |
Custody Models in Crossmint
Crossmint does not impose a single custody model. Instead, your signer configuration determines custody. The three models below represent the most common patterns.Non-Custodial (Self-Custodial)
In a non-custodial configuration, only the end user holds signing keys. Crossmint has no ability to authorize transactions or access the wallet’s assets. Typical signer configuration:| Role | Signer | Held by |
|---|---|---|
| Signer | Device signer | User’s device (secure enclave) |
| Recovery | Email or phone OTP | User (via their email/phone) |
- Consumer applications where users expect self-sovereignty over their assets
- Products where regulatory classification as a non-custodial provider is important
- Applications where minimizing your organization’s liability for user assets is a priority
Custodial
In a custodial configuration, your organization holds all signing keys. You have full control over the wallet and can authorize transactions without user involvement. Typical signer configuration:| Role | Signer | Held by |
|---|---|---|
| Signer | Server signer or Cloud KMS | Your infrastructure |
| Recovery | Server signer or Cloud KMS (different key) | Your infrastructure |
- Treasury, escrow, and operational wallets owned by your organization
- Products where you need programmatic control over transaction approval (spending limits, compliance checks, multi-step workflows)
- AI agent wallets where the agent is platform-hosted and acts on behalf of your organization
- Scenarios where your organization is already a licensed custodian or plans to become one
Hybrid
Hybrid models distribute signing authority across multiple parties. Neither your organization nor the user can act unilaterally — both must participate in some capacity. Example signer configuration:| Role | Signer | Held by |
|---|---|---|
| Signer | Device signer | User’s device |
| Additional signer | Server signer | Your infrastructure |
| Recovery | External wallet | User’s existing wallet |
- Enterprise applications with compliance requirements that demand organizational oversight
- Platforms that need to enforce transaction policies while giving users self-custody
- Multi-signature workflows where different parties authorize different operations
Mapping Signers to Custody
The table below summarizes how common signer configurations map to custody models.| Signer | Recovery signer | Custody model | Who can sign transactions? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Device signer | Email/phone OTP | Non-custodial | User only |
| Device signer | Server signer | Hybrid | User signs; organization recovers |
| Server signer | Server signer | Custodial | Organization only |
| Cloud KMS | Cloud KMS (different key) | Custodial | Organization only |
| Passkey | Email/phone OTP | Non-custodial | User only |
| External wallet | Server signer | Hybrid | User signs; organization recovers |
| Server signer | Email/phone OTP | Hybrid | Organization signs; user recovers |
Custody is not just about the signer. The recovery signer matters too — whoever controls recovery can add new signers to the wallet, which means they can eventually gain signing access. A wallet with a user-controlled signer but an organization-controlled recovery signer is a hybrid model, not non-custodial.
Compliance Considerations
Custody classification varies by jurisdiction and is subject to evolving regulation. The following are general considerations — not legal advice.- Non-custodial providers generally face fewer licensing requirements, but some jurisdictions are introducing regulations that apply to non-custodial wallet providers as well (for example, requirements around transaction monitoring or user identity verification).
- Custodial providers in most jurisdictions need some form of financial services license (money transmitter license in the US, MiCA authorization in the EU, etc.). The specific requirements depend on the jurisdiction, the types of assets held, and the services offered.
- Hybrid models are the most complex from a regulatory perspective. Classification depends on the specific signer configuration and the degree of control each party has.
See Also
Signers
The full signer type reference and recommended configurations
Architecture
How the dual-layer architecture separates wallet logic from signer control

