The post Banks Navigate Compliance in Digital Asset Custody appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. James Ding Nov 14, 2025 11:38 Banks are integrating digital asset custody with new compliance frameworks, aligning with global standards like NIST CSF and DORA to secure assets effectively. Banks and financial institutions are increasingly incorporating digital assets into their operations, marking a significant shift in the financial landscape. This transition presents new challenges in terms of threat vectors and custody models, necessitating alignment with emerging supervisory standards. Global regulators are establishing frameworks to formalize best practices in digital asset management, although specifics on custody architecture remain underdeveloped, according to Fireblocks. Framework for Digital Asset Custody Fireblocks has introduced a custody technology framework designed to support regulated institutions by aligning their infrastructure with supervisory expectations and operational best practices. This framework focuses on key areas such as risk management, control enforcement, and governance, aiming to provide a secure and scalable model for digital asset custody. The framework is structured around four core domains: compliance-related controls, technical safeguards, transaction processing, and monitoring and resilience. It aligns with global regulatory expectations, including NIST CSF 2.0, offering banks a model to operationalize custody governance effectively. Comparing Traditional and Digital Asset Compliance Regulators are extending traditional control expectations into blockchain environments, adapting them to reflect cryptographic infrastructure and real-time operational risks. Key distinctions between traditional and digital asset compliance frameworks include differences in custody models, governance, and risk controls, as well as technology risk expectations and third-party oversight. These adaptations highlight how banks must redefine risk management strategies to accommodate digital asset activities, positioning compliance as a critical operational component. Core Risk Management Domains As regulatory expectations evolve, institutions must embed controls across custody operations. Compliance-related controls must address traditional regulatory requirements and specific blockchain risks, including transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and know-your-customer (KYC) processes. Technical… The post Banks Navigate Compliance in Digital Asset Custody appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. James Ding Nov 14, 2025 11:38 Banks are integrating digital asset custody with new compliance frameworks, aligning with global standards like NIST CSF and DORA to secure assets effectively. Banks and financial institutions are increasingly incorporating digital assets into their operations, marking a significant shift in the financial landscape. This transition presents new challenges in terms of threat vectors and custody models, necessitating alignment with emerging supervisory standards. Global regulators are establishing frameworks to formalize best practices in digital asset management, although specifics on custody architecture remain underdeveloped, according to Fireblocks. Framework for Digital Asset Custody Fireblocks has introduced a custody technology framework designed to support regulated institutions by aligning their infrastructure with supervisory expectations and operational best practices. This framework focuses on key areas such as risk management, control enforcement, and governance, aiming to provide a secure and scalable model for digital asset custody. The framework is structured around four core domains: compliance-related controls, technical safeguards, transaction processing, and monitoring and resilience. It aligns with global regulatory expectations, including NIST CSF 2.0, offering banks a model to operationalize custody governance effectively. Comparing Traditional and Digital Asset Compliance Regulators are extending traditional control expectations into blockchain environments, adapting them to reflect cryptographic infrastructure and real-time operational risks. Key distinctions between traditional and digital asset compliance frameworks include differences in custody models, governance, and risk controls, as well as technology risk expectations and third-party oversight. These adaptations highlight how banks must redefine risk management strategies to accommodate digital asset activities, positioning compliance as a critical operational component. Core Risk Management Domains As regulatory expectations evolve, institutions must embed controls across custody operations. Compliance-related controls must address traditional regulatory requirements and specific blockchain risks, including transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and know-your-customer (KYC) processes. Technical…

Banks Navigate Compliance in Digital Asset Custody



James Ding
Nov 14, 2025 11:38

Banks are integrating digital asset custody with new compliance frameworks, aligning with global standards like NIST CSF and DORA to secure assets effectively.

Banks and financial institutions are increasingly incorporating digital assets into their operations, marking a significant shift in the financial landscape. This transition presents new challenges in terms of threat vectors and custody models, necessitating alignment with emerging supervisory standards. Global regulators are establishing frameworks to formalize best practices in digital asset management, although specifics on custody architecture remain underdeveloped, according to Fireblocks.

Framework for Digital Asset Custody

Fireblocks has introduced a custody technology framework designed to support regulated institutions by aligning their infrastructure with supervisory expectations and operational best practices. This framework focuses on key areas such as risk management, control enforcement, and governance, aiming to provide a secure and scalable model for digital asset custody.

The framework is structured around four core domains: compliance-related controls, technical safeguards, transaction processing, and monitoring and resilience. It aligns with global regulatory expectations, including NIST CSF 2.0, offering banks a model to operationalize custody governance effectively.

Comparing Traditional and Digital Asset Compliance

Regulators are extending traditional control expectations into blockchain environments, adapting them to reflect cryptographic infrastructure and real-time operational risks. Key distinctions between traditional and digital asset compliance frameworks include differences in custody models, governance, and risk controls, as well as technology risk expectations and third-party oversight.

These adaptations highlight how banks must redefine risk management strategies to accommodate digital asset activities, positioning compliance as a critical operational component.

Core Risk Management Domains

As regulatory expectations evolve, institutions must embed controls across custody operations. Compliance-related controls must address traditional regulatory requirements and specific blockchain risks, including transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and know-your-customer (KYC) processes.

Technical safeguards should incorporate cryptographic key management and secure enclave operations, while transaction processing should integrate compliance enforcement directly into workflows. Monitoring and resilience require real-time visibility and threat detection capabilities, ensuring operational integrity and data security.

Strategic Compliance Implementation

By embedding compliance into their infrastructure, banks can turn regulatory adherence into a strategic advantage. This approach supports product development, market entry, and operational integrity, allowing institutions to scale their digital asset operations with confidence.

As frameworks like DORA and NIST CSF 2.0 guide regulatory alignment, Fireblocks’ model offers a practical approach to integrating compliance into custody architecture, enhancing auditability and mitigating risks.

Image source: Shutterstock

Source: https://blockchain.news/news/banks-navigate-compliance-in-digital-asset-custody

Market Opportunity
Wink Logo
Wink Price(LIKE)
$0.002741
$0.002741$0.002741
+0.69%
USD
Wink (LIKE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
How ZKP’s Daily Presale Auction Is Creating a New Standard for 1,000x Returns

How ZKP’s Daily Presale Auction Is Creating a New Standard for 1,000x Returns

The post How ZKP’s Daily Presale Auction Is Creating a New Standard for 1,000x Returns appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Disclaimer: This article is a sponsored
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/16 09:02
Lighter drops 14% after losing $2 support – More pain ahead for LIT?

Lighter drops 14% after losing $2 support – More pain ahead for LIT?

The post Lighter drops 14% after losing $2 support – More pain ahead for LIT? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Since it touched a high of $4.5, Lighter has
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/16 08:46