Start here
Crypto licence Switzerland
The authorisation map a custody business plugs into: SRO membership now, the crypto-institution licence ahead.
Crypto licenceSwiss crypto custody
& segregation
Switzerland’s custody advantage is real: under the DLT Act, client crypto kept individually attributable can be segregated from a failed custodian’s estate. But that protection is conditional. It holds only if the custody stays the right side of the deposit boundary, and only if staking is handled with care. We structure custody so the segregation survives, map the licensing, and ready it for the 2027 crypto-institution licence.
At a glance
Safekeeping that survives the custodian’s failure.
Segregable assets, the deposit line, and staking handled with care.
- Bankruptcy protection
- Segregation under the DLT Act
- Banking licence?
- No, if it stays off the deposit line
- Now
- SRO membership (AMLA)
- Coming 2026–2027
- Crypto-institution licence (proposed)
- Watch
- Staking & attribution
The essentials
What makes Swiss crypto custody distinctive
Switzerland gives crypto custody something most jurisdictions do not: a statutory segregation right. Under the DLT Act, crypto-based assets held in custody and individually attributable to a client can be separated from the custodian’s bankruptcy estate and returned to the client. That right is the foundation of credible Swiss custody. It holds only where the assets are kept genuinely segregated and attributable, and never pooled onto the custodian’s balance sheet.
Who this is for
- custodians and wallet providers holding client crypto;
- exchanges and brokers offering safekeeping alongside trading;
- businesses adding staking and wondering what it does to licensing;
- providers deciding between SRO membership and a full licence.
The two questions that govern it
Does the custody create a deposit (and so need a banking licence)? And does it keep assets segregable (so the bankruptcy protection holds)? Both turn on the deposit boundary, and both feed the authorisation route.
The decision
Custody or deposit: the boundary
The same business can be light-touch custody or regulated deposit-taking depending on mechanics most teams overlook. Here is where the line runs.
| How client assets are held | Treatment | Authorisation |
|---|---|---|
| Segregated, attributable, off balance sheet | Custody, segregable in bankruptcy | SRO membership (now) |
| Pooled, on balance sheet, or lent out | Deposit-taking | Banking licence |
| Staked for clients | Depends on attribution staying intact | Care needed; crypto-institution ahead |
| Client controls own keys | Non-custodial | Lighter; assess real control |
The protection the DLT Act offers and the licence you need both depend on landing in the top row and staying there. Staking and rehypothecation are the usual ways a custody model slips into the second row without anyone deciding to. We pin down exactly where the model sits and design it to stay there.
How it runs
From model to authorisation
Custody is judged on mechanics and controls, so the structuring and the operational design come before the application.
- Stage 1
Deposit-boundary analysis
Mapping exactly how assets are held, attributed and used, to fix whether the model is custody or deposit-taking, and where staking sits.
- Stage 2
Segregation design
Structuring wallets, attribution and key management so client assets stay individually attributable and the bankruptcy protection holds.
- Stage 3
Entity, substance & AML
The Swiss entity, the operational substance and controls, and the AML framework a custodian must run.
- Stage 4
Ruling & application
A FINMA ruling where the line is fine, and the SRO membership or licence application through to approval.
- Ongoing
Operate & convert
Maintaining the controls and reporting, and positioning to convert into the crypto-institution licence when the reform lands.
Budget
What it costs
Custody costs track the model’s complexity: a clean segregated-custody offering on SRO membership is lighter than one involving staking, rehypothecation or anything near the deposit line, which may need a ruling or a heavier licence. The operational security and controls a custodian must build are a real part of the cost.
We scope and quote against your actual custody model after the boundary analysis. Pricing is on request.
Discuss your model
What you need
What custody requires
Credible Swiss custody rests on the assets being genuinely the client’s, and provably so:
- client assets kept segregated, individually attributable and off balance sheet;
- key management and operational security that withstand scrutiny;
- staking and any rehypothecation structured so attribution survives;
- a full AML framework: identification, monitoring, Travel Rule, MROS;
- a Swiss entity with real substance, controls and governance.
The segregation right protects only what is truly segregated
Custodians sometimes assume the DLT Act’s bankruptcy protection applies automatically because they are Swiss. It does not. The right protects assets that are individually attributable to the client and kept available, and the moment assets are commingled, lent, or staked in a way that breaks attribution, it is forfeited. A custodian that markets “assets protected under Swiss law” while running a pooled or rehypothecated book is making a promise the law will not keep. Protection like this is earned in the operational design, not assumed from the jurisdiction.
Why Goldblum
What building the custody involves
Crypto custody is where bankruptcy law, banking law and operational security meet. Structuring it so the segregation holds and the licensing is right is financial-regulation work. That is the desk it sits on.
Boundary
The right side of the deposit line
The model mapped and designed to stay custody, not deposit-taking, so it does not back into a banking licence by accident through staking or pooling.
Protection
Segregation that actually holds
The wallets, attribution and controls structured so the DLT Act’s bankruptcy protection is real in fact, not just asserted in marketing.
Forward
Built for the 2027 licence
Today’s custody structured to convert into the crypto-institution licence, which expressly covers custody and staking, when the reform takes effect.
Related
Around custody
Trading venues
DLT trading facility licence
The licensed venue for trading DLT securities, with integrated custody and settlement, where custody meets the market.
DLT trading facilityOngoing duty
VASP AML & Travel Rule
The anti-money-laundering framework a custodian, as a financial intermediary, must run alongside the custody itself.
VASP AML
FAQ
Crypto custody: FAQ
01Are crypto assets in custody protected if the custodian fails?
In Switzerland, yes — and this is a genuine advantage of the jurisdiction. The DLT Act introduced a segregation right: crypto-based assets held in custody that are individually attributable to a client can be segregated from the custodian's bankruptcy estate and returned to the client, rather than being swept into the general pool of creditors. This is what makes Swiss custody credible. The protection depends on the assets being kept available and attributable to the client at all times, and guaranteeing that is the job of the custody structure.
02Do I need a banking licence to custody crypto?
Not necessarily. The dividing line is whether the custody creates a deposit. A custodian that holds the client's crypto-based assets segregated, available and individually attributable, never on its own balance sheet and never used for its own account, generally does not create a deposit and needs no banking licence. The moment it pools assets, lends them, or owes the client a mere claim rather than holding their actual assets, it crosses into deposit-taking and banking regulation. The mechanics decide the licence.
03What is the deposit boundary in crypto custody?
It is the line between safekeeping a client's own assets and owing the client a claim. Holding the exact tokens that belong to the client, kept segregated and ready to return, is custody. Taking the client's crypto onto your balance sheet, or promising to return 'the same amount' from a common pool you manage, looks like accepting a deposit, which needs a banking or, in future, a crypto-institution licence. Many custody models drift across this line without realising it, often through how they handle staking or rehypothecation. Working out exactly where your model sits is the core of the analysis.
04How does staking affect custody and licensing?
Staking complicates the picture. When a custodian stakes a client's assets, questions arise about whether those assets remain individually attributable and segregable, and whether the arrangement starts to look like the custodian using client assets for its own purposes. Depending on how staking is structured, it can jeopardise the bankruptcy segregation or push the activity towards deposit-taking. The incoming crypto-institution licence is designed to cover custody including staking explicitly. Until then, staking has to be structured carefully so it does not forfeit the segregation protection by accident.
05What is the crypto-institution licence arriving in 2027?
It is a proposed FINMA licence category. The Federal Council's October 2025 consultation on revising the Financial Institutions Act would create a crypto-institution licence covering the custody of crypto assets, including the provision of staking, together with client trading and short-term proprietary trading. It is expected to take effect around 2026–2027, with a transition period, and would shift custodians from SRO membership towards direct FINMA supervision. As of June 2026 it is proposed, not in force, so custody launching now is built under the existing regime and positioned to convert.
06Can I offer custody on SRO membership today?
Often, yes — for now. A custodian that keeps client assets segregated and does not cross into deposit-taking generally operates as a financial intermediary requiring SRO membership for anti-money-laundering purposes, rather than a banking licence. This is the common route for a Swiss custody business under the current regime. But it rests on staying the right side of the deposit boundary, and the coming crypto-institution licence will change the supervisory route. We design for today's regime and tomorrow's at the same time.
07What is the difference between custodial and non-custodial models?
In a custodial model the provider controls the keys and holds the client's assets. That is what brings the segregation, deposit-boundary and licensing questions into play. In a non-custodial model the client keeps control of their own keys and the provider never holds the assets, which avoids much of the custody regulation but is a different product. Many businesses assume they are non-custodial when, in substance, they exercise enough control to be treated as custodial. We assess the real degree of control, not the marketing description.
08Does custody trigger anti-money-laundering obligations?
Yes. A custodian holding crypto for clients is a financial intermediary and must run the full AML framework: client identification, beneficial-ownership checks, transaction monitoring, the Travel Rule and suspicious-activity reporting to MROS. Custody and AML are inseparable: you cannot safekeep assets for clients you have not properly identified. We build the AML function alongside the custody structure so the two are designed together, and that is how it passes supervision in practice.
09Does a custodian need a Swiss entity and substance?
Yes. Custody authorisation, whether SRO membership now or the crypto-institution licence later, attaches to a Swiss entity with genuine substance: a Swiss AG or GmbH, a registered office, a resident director, and real operational presence and controls here. A custody business is also judged on its operational security, key management and governance, none of which can credibly sit offshore. We form the entity and build the substance and controls that the custody authorisation rests on.
10How do I keep assets segregable in practice?
By ensuring, operationally and legally, that each client's assets stay individually attributable and available at all times: distinct wallets or a sound attribution system, no commingling that defeats traceability, no use of client assets for the custodian's account, and staking structured so it does not break attribution. The segregation right in law protects only what is genuinely segregated in fact. The custody architecture, the key management and the records all have to support it, and that is where the structuring work concentrates.
11What does Goldblum do on a crypto custody setup?
We map the model against the deposit boundary, structure the custody so client assets stay segregable and the bankruptcy protection holds, advise on staking and any rehypothecation, obtain a FINMA ruling where the line is fine, and run the SRO membership or licence application. We build the AML framework alongside, form the Swiss entity and substance, and position the structure to convert into the crypto-institution licence when it arrives. The custody business is sound now and ready for the reform.
Building a crypto custody offering?
Tell us how you hold client assets. A partner maps the deposit boundary, structures the segregation so it holds in bankruptcy, and sets the authorisation route, now and for 2027.