# Пов'язані статті щодо Custody

Центр новин HTX надає останні статті та поглиблений аналіз на тему "Custody", що охоплює ринкові тренди, оновлення проєктів, технологічні розробки та регуляторну політику в криптоіндустрії.

Understanding Bound in One Article: The "Multi-signature + Timelock" Escape Mechanism and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box

**Title**: Understanding Bound: The Escape Mechanism of "Multi-Sig + Time Lock" and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box **Summary**: Bound Exchange, evolved from the earlier radFi platform, introduces a novel approach to Bitcoin trading by combining self-custody security with exchange-like speed. Its core mechanism relies on a 2-of-2 multi-signature (multi-sig) address for user deposits. One private key is held by the user via a passkey, and the other is held by Bound. This setup requires both keys to sign any transaction, preventing Bound from unilaterally accessing user funds (non-custodial). To address the risk of Bound becoming unavailable, a 3-month timelock is integrated into the Bitcoin script. After this period, users can withdraw their assets with just their single signature, ensuring an escape hatch. For trading, Bound operates a concentrated liquidity AMM. However, as Bitcoin L1 lacks smart contracts, the AMM curve, liquidity management, and trade price calculations occur off-chain in Bound's backend database. On-chain Bitcoin transactions serve only as final settlement receipts for pre-determined amounts. This creates a centralization point: the critical sequence of trade execution—which determines the exact price along the curve for each order—is managed off-chain by Bound in a non-transparent "black box." While the 2-of-2 setup protects user本金 (principal), the pricing and ordering of trades introduce potential operational MEV risks, as the order processing is invisible and unverifiable on-chain. In practice, users can also connect external wallets (like Unisat) for fully self-custodied trading, but this requires manually signing every transaction. The platform currently supports deposits of BTC and Runes only.

marsbit05/25 09:11

Understanding Bound in One Article: The "Multi-signature + Timelock" Escape Mechanism and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box

marsbit05/25 09:11

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

**Summary:** This companion piece reframes the five TradFi-on-crypto exchange architectures, previously classified by "architectural fingerprint," through the lens of counterparty risk. The core question is: whose balance sheet bears the loss first in a stress scenario, and has it historically done so? Each of the five models corresponds to a distinct risk holder with its own documented failure modes. * **Model 1 (Stablecoin-Settled CEX Perpetuals):** Risk is held by the stablecoin issuer (e.g., reserve composition, bank connectivity) and the CEX's own book. History includes Tether's banking disconnections (2017) and reserve misrepresentations (CFTC 2021 Order). * **Model 2 (CFD Brokers):** Risk resides on the broker's balance sheet (B-book model). Regulatory differences (e.g., ESMA's mandatory negative balance protection vs. Mauritius FSC's lack thereof) define loss allocation rules, as seen in the 2015 SNB event (Alpari UK insolvency). * **Model 3 (Off-Chain Custody & Transfer Agent Chain):** Risk lies with the off-chain custodian/platform. User asset recovery depends on Terms of Use and corporate structure, exemplified by the Celsius bankruptcy ruling (2023) where Earn Account assets were deemed property of the estate. * **Model 4 (DEX Perpetual Protocols):** No single balance sheet bears risk. Loss absorption relies on a protocol's insurance fund and Auto-Deleveraging (ADL) mechanism, as demonstrated in the GMX V1 (2022) and dYdX v3 YFI (2023) incidents. * **Model 5 (Regulated CCP - DCM-DCO-FCM):** The most institutionalized model concentrates risk in the Central Counterparty (CCP). However, history shows CCPs can employ non-standard tools under extreme stress, such as mass trade cancellation (LME Nickel, 2022) or enabling negative price settlements (CME WTI, 2020). The report argues that regulatory choices and counterparty risk structures are co-extensive, not in an upstream-downstream relationship. It concludes with five separate observation checklists (not predictions) for monitoring the structural vulnerabilities of each risk model.

marsbit05/12 00:06

Five Counterparty Risk Architectures: A Settlement-Layer Methodology for Classifying TradFi Models in Crypto Exchanges

marsbit05/12 00:06

Can You Really 'Get' Your Gold? The Custodial Geography Blind Spot Behind Tokenized Gold

The article challenges the common perception that tokenized gold is a globally uniform asset class, arguing that its true value and functionality are intrinsically tied to the physical location and legal jurisdiction where the underlying gold is stored. Unlike stablecoins, whose value is based on fungible financial assets like treasury bills, tokenized gold represents a legal claim to a specific physical asset in a specific location. This makes the geography of custody not a minor detail, but a core component of the asset itself. The price stability of a tokenized gold product is maintained not by technology, but by arbitrage mechanisms that require the efficient, low-cost redemption of physical gold. This arbitrage is only feasible if the gold is stored in the same region as the user, avoiding complex cross-border logistics, legal hurdles, and delays that can erase profit margins. Consequently, the credibility of a product's price peg depends on the efficiency of its local redemption infrastructure. The author posits that tokenized gold will not converge into a single global market but will instead become regionalized. For institutional users in places like Singapore or Hong Kong, gold stored locally—within their familiar legal, regulatory, and market infrastructure—is a fundamentally different and more usable asset than gold stored in London or Zurich. This local embeddedness is critical for practical uses like serving as collateral or passing regulatory audits. The central question for investors shifts from "Is this token backed by gold?" to "Can I actually *get* the gold when it matters?" The article concludes that the ultimate test of a tokenized gold product is not its stated backing but its practical accessibility within the user's own market and legal system during a crisis.

marsbit04/21 08:40

Can You Really 'Get' Your Gold? The Custodial Geography Blind Spot Behind Tokenized Gold

marsbit04/21 08:40

活动图片