Amid growing interest in institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies, the question of whether companies should custody their own XRP holdings has ignited intense debate. Crypto analyst Vincent Van Code has come forward with a clear and cautionary stance: companies should not self-custody XRP, as doing so introduces profound operational, financial, and regulatory risks that most firms are ill-equipped to manage.
Van Code argues that the moment a company assumes responsibility for storing its own XRP, it inadvertently transforms into a quasi-financial institution—taking on roles akin to a bank, a securities depository, and a regulated asset custodian. This shift isn’t just semantic—it comes with significant legal and compliance obligations. According to Van Code, self-custody at the corporate level isn’t simply about securing a seed phrase; it’s about building and maintaining an entire infrastructure capable of withstanding both external threats and regulatory scrutiny.
He emphasizes that many companies mistakenly compare holding XRP to holding fiat in a corporate bank account. However, the reality is starkly different. Custodying a digital asset like XRP means operating within a regulated framework that demands extensive oversight. This includes annual audits, implementation of SOC2 security controls, robust cold storage protocols, and comprehensive documentation of key ceremonies—procedures that govern how private keys are generated, stored, and accessed.
Further complicating the picture, companies must also establish internal safeguards such as segregation of duties to prevent unauthorized access, implement systems for detecting insider threats, and maintain 24/7 monitoring of their wallet infrastructure. These requirements are not optional—they represent the minimum standard for maintaining a secure and compliant custody environment.
In terms of staffing, the demands are equally rigorous. Organizations must employ dedicated compliance officers, risk management professionals, incident response teams, and legal advisors. All these roles contribute to a framework that ensures regulatory alignment and operational continuity. Without them, a simple security breach or audit discrepancy could lead to crippling fines or reputational damage.
Van Code also highlights the financial burden of such a setup. A fully compliant crypto custody program can easily cost companies upwards of seven figures annually. External audits alone range from $250,000 to $500,000 per year. This doesn’t include the added costs of penetration testing, cyber liability insurance, regulatory reporting infrastructure, and maintaining an unbroken chain of custody.
Given these complexities, Van Code suggests that the most efficient and scalable approach for companies seeking XRP exposure is through regulated financial instruments like spot XRP ETFs or professionally managed treasury solutions, such as those offered by firms like Evernorth. These intermediaries absorb the compliance, audit, and infrastructure burdens, allowing businesses to gain exposure to XRP without assuming the full weight of custodial responsibilities.
He argues that the future of mass XRP adoption lies not in thousands of companies independently managing their own wallets, but in a model where exposure is achieved through institutional-grade wrappers. These vehicles offer the security, transparency, and regulatory compliance needed for mainstream adoption—without requiring companies to transform into custodians themselves.
In exploring the broader implications of this stance, it becomes clear that Van Code’s recommendations align with a wider trend in the crypto industry: the professionalization and institutionalization of digital asset management. As regulatory frameworks tighten globally, companies face increasing pressure to demonstrate secure handling of crypto assets. This makes outsourced custody solutions not only more practical, but often legally necessary.
Additionally, using third-party custodians can offer better insurance coverage and disaster recovery plans. These custodians are typically registered and regulated entities with years of experience managing large-scale digital assets, making them more resilient in the face of cyberattacks and internal fraud attempts.
Another key consideration is reputational risk. Should a company suffer a high-profile crypto theft due to inadequate self-custody practices, the damage to its brand and investor confidence could be irreversible. In contrast, utilizing a regulated custodian shifts much of the liability away from the company and toward a specialized entity designed to handle such risks.
Moreover, Van Code’s argument opens the door to a larger conversation about crypto treasury management as a discipline. Just as companies have CFOs to oversee fiat reserves and investments, the growing presence of digital assets on corporate balance sheets demands a specialized approach. This includes not only choosing the right exposure vehicles but also developing policies for crypto asset allocation, liquidity management, and risk hedging.
It’s also worth noting that regulated custody solutions can ease the path toward regulatory compliance, especially for public companies or those operating in jurisdictions with strict financial oversight. These entities are often subject to Sarbanes-Oxley or similar laws, which require stringent controls over asset reporting and security.
Finally, Van Code’s insights underscore the need for education within the corporate sector. Many executives still underestimate the complexity of managing digital assets securely. As the crypto space evolves, companies must either invest in deepening their internal knowledge or partner with external experts who can help navigate this new frontier.
In conclusion, while the allure of self-custody may appeal to companies seeking full control over their XRP assets, the reality is fraught with hidden costs and compliance challenges. Vincent Van Code’s message is clear: for most businesses, the smarter path lies in regulated, professionally managed exposure—not in assuming the heavy burdens of crypto custody. As institutional interest in XRP continues to grow, the role of trusted custodians and ETFs will only become more central to the asset’s long-term success.