Wallet Management
Selecting the right wallet for digital asset management is critical for ensuring a balance between security, control, and convenience. Custodial and non-custodial wallets have long been the standard options, each offering distinct benefits. However, Multi-Party Computation (MPC) technology offers a new level of protection and flexibility, setting it apart from traditional solutions. By splitting private keys across multiple devices or locations, MPC-based wallets eliminate single points of failure, significantly enhancing security and reducing the risk of unauthorized access.
In addition to enhanced security, MPC wallets improve transaction speed and performance, enabling quicker transaction signing and seamless integration with various blockchain networks. With built-in support for regulatory compliance, including detailed transaction policies and audit trails, MPC-based wallets are particularly well-suited for institutional users.
The comparison table below details the key differences between custodial, non-custodial, and MPC-based wallets, illustrating why MPC offers the most advanced and secure solution for digital asset management.
Comparison Table
Key Ownership
Service Provider
User
Distributed among multiple parties
Control Over Funds
Limited, managed by third party
Full control by user
Collaborative control required
Security Model
Depends on the custodian's security
User responsible for security
Enhanced security through key distribution
Privacy
Less private, data with custodian
More private, user holds keys
Private, keys are split and only reconstructed if exported from Stobox 4
Recovery
Custodian can assist in recovery
User-managed recovery (e.g., seed phrase)
Can involve multiple parties for recovery
Transaction Signing
Done by the custodian
User signs transactions
Requires agreement from a threshold of key share holders
Scalability
High, managed by service provider
Varies, depends on user setup
High, designed for enterprise-level scalability
Regulatory Compliance
Often compliant, managed by entity
User responsibility
Can be tailored for compliance, done in Stobox 4
Complexity
Low for user, high for provider
Moderate, user must understand wallet management
High, due to distributed key management
Use Case
For users preferring convenience over control
For users wanting full control over their assets
For institutions and collaborative environments
Examples
Exchanges' built-in wallets
Hardware Wallets, MetaMask
Fireblocks, Stobox 4
Setup and Use
Easy setup, often through an account creation
Requires wallet creation and key management
More complex setup due to multi-party involvement
Counterparty Risk
High, depends on custodian's stability
Low, no reliance on third parties
Reduced, but depends on the implementation and parties involved
Innovation in Custody
Traditional model
Often linked with DeFi applications
Allows for novel custody solutions and smart contract interactions
Last updated