Custodial vs Non-Custodial Wallets for Enterprises

Custodial vs non-custodial wallets is a central decision for enterprises adopting Web3. Who holds the keys determines who bears risk, who must comply with regulation, and how recovery and operations work. Gizmolab builds wallet and custody infrastructure for enterprises that need production-grade key management and compliance.

Control and Responsibility

In a custodial setup, the custodian controls keys and executes transactions; the enterprise relies on the custodian for security and availability. In a non-custodial setup, the enterprise (or its users) controls keys; loss of keys means loss of access with no third party to recover. Responsibility and liability sit with the key holder.

Compliance and Recovery

Custodial providers are often regulated (e.g. qualified custodians) and can integrate with KYC/AML and reporting. Key recovery, account freeze, and support are part of the service. Non-custodial setups put compliance on the enterprise; recovery is typically via seed phrase or backup—no custodian to call. Enterprises that must meet strict regulatory or audit requirements often use custodial or hybrid solutions.

When Enterprises Choose Custodial vs Non-Custodial

Choose custodial when you need delegated key management, regulatory alignment, and simpler recovery. Choose non-custodial when you need full control, want to avoid custodian risk, and have the capability to manage keys and compliance. Hybrid models (e.g. multi-sig with a custodian as one signer, or MPC with distributed key shares) are common for institutional use.

Gizmolab is a Web3 development studio that builds enterprise wallet and custody systems, including integrations with custodians and self-custody flows.

FAQ