More
    Home Blog Page 5

    Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins: What True Self-Custody Actually Requires

    0

    New research examines how investor behavior, wallet architectures, and operational security practices determine what genuine self-custody requires in 2026.

    The foundational promise of cryptocurrency is decentralized, sovereign ownership. But this promise has run into a far more sobering reality, as a lot of funds held on centralized exchanges have been lost over the years. Users have learned the same lesson in different forms: Not your keys, not your coins.

    Cointelegraph Research’s latest report, produced in collaboration with Trezor, the original hardware wallet, and titled “The Future of Self-Custody: Turning Ownership Into Security,” examines how this realization has reshaped investor behavior. Drawing on survey responses, post-mortem analyses of exchange failures, and a breakdown of modern wallet architectures, the report explains why self-custody should be a defining topic for crypto security in 2026.

    Read the full research report to see how Cointelegraph Research translates what genuine self-custody security requires in 2026

    Survey data shows a decisive erosion of trust in centralized exchanges. A majority of respondents now trust exchanges less than they did a year earlier, with the memory of the FTX collapse remaining a key psychological driver. Even regulatory frameworks such as MiCA, which improve custodial oversight, do not alter the underlying dynamic. Users increasingly recognize that custodial access can be restricted or withdrawn by decisions outside of their control. Migration into self-custody has therefore become a form of risk management.

    Once assets move into self-custody, security no longer depends on institutional controls but on the user’s operational discipline. The survey shows that most users converge on a simple architecture, yet many still misunderstand that while hardware wallets meaningfully reduce the risk of remote compromise, they do not eliminate losses caused by the user.  

    Security, Trezor, Hardware Wallet, Cryptocurrency Exchange, Cointelegraph Research Reports

    As a result, the report shifts the focus from device choice to behavior: how transactions are verified, how recovery material is stored, and how users model real-world threats.

    Security, Trezor, Hardware Wallet, Cryptocurrency Exchange, Cointelegraph Research Reports

    The central conclusion is that turning ownership into security is not achieved through regulation, branding, or devices alone. It is a behavioral practice that depends on disciplined use of devices and an accurate understanding of what custody does and does not protect against.

    Read the full report to understand why self-custody is important

    This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as, legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph. Cointelegraph does not endorse the content of this article nor any product mentioned herein. Readers should do their own research before taking any action related to any product or company mentioned and carry full responsibility for their decisions. While we strive to provide accurate and timely information, Cointelegraph does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information in this article. This article may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Cointelegraph will not be liable for any loss or damage arising from your reliance on this information.

    Source link

    Offshore Crypto Exchanges Create Oversight Gaps, FATF Says

    0

    A new report from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) warns that crypto service providers operating offshore pose risks of money laundering, sanctions evasion and other illicit financial activity.

    In the report, titled “Understanding and Mitigating the Risks of Offshore Virtual Asset Service Providers (oVASPs),” the FATF said some offshore firms exploit gaps and differences in regulatory and supervisory coverage, making it harder for authorities to monitor activity and enforce Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing rules.

    “As a result, effective international co-operation may not be possible, including with the relevant oVASP supervisor, thereby limiting the effectiveness of domestic risk-mitigation measures,” the report said.

    The watchdog said the issue is particularly challenging because many offshore crypto firms operate across multiple jurisdictions. A company may be incorporated in one country, host infrastructure in another and serve customers worldwide through online platforms, leaving regulators uncertain about which authority has responsibility.

    Related: Europe’s DeFi tax gap won’t last forever, says ex-OECD official

    Regulators struggle to track offshore crypto

    The FATF also said some countries struggle to identify offshore platforms providing services to local users. Without a local legal presence, authorities may have limited visibility into these businesses or the transactions they process.

    To address the problem, FATF urged countries to strengthen oversight of crypto firms serving their markets, even if those companies are based abroad.

    FATF survey found that 83% of jurisdictions require licensed or registered crypto service providers. Source: FATF

    The organization recommended that governments require offshore VASPs to register or obtain licenses when offering services to domestic users. It also called for stronger cooperation between regulators and law enforcement agencies across borders.

    Related: How Vietnam is using crypto to fix its FATF reputation

    FATF flags P2P stablecoin transfers

    The warning follows a separate FATF report last week on stablecoins and unhosted wallets, which said peer-to-peer transfers can weaken AML oversight when transactions occur without regulated intermediaries such as exchanges or custodians.