The Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) released a temporary framework for layered custody of crypto assets this week, aiming to use self-regulatory rules to urgently "catch up" with the market. This framework, led by CIRO, primarily aims to manage custody risks through tiered management, opening a compliant channel for traditional and emerging institutions to increase their holdings in assets like Bitcoin, while also providing a clear risk baseline at the institutional level. The most striking aspect of the document is the strict limitation on the self-custody ratio cap for custodians and traders at all levels: first and second-tier custodians can hold up to 100% of client assets, third-tier custodians have a cap of 75%, and fourth-tier custodians can only hold 40%, while traders' self-custody ratio is locked at 20% or below (according to a single source). Behind these cold numbers lies a structural contradiction in regulation, struggling to find a balance between preventing QuadrigaCX-style black box collapses and paving the way for institutional funds to enter the market: how to minimize systemic trust risks brought by centralized custody without stifling innovation and liquidity.
From the QuadrigaCX Black Swan to the Direct Projection of New Custody Regulations
● Historical scars: The QuadrigaCX incident in 2019 shocked the Canadian market, resulting in approximately $123 million in user assets becoming unrecoverable due to the sudden death of the founder, missing private keys, and chaotic accounts, becoming a collective memory in the Canadian crypto industry. The incident exposed the fatal gap of trading platforms "holding assets, lacking independent custody and transparent supervision," which shattered investors' trust in local platforms and made "custody absence" an unavoidable keyword for regulators.
● Direct causality: In the temporary custody framework released by CIRO, the regulatory body explicitly mentions preventing a recurrence of incidents like QuadrigaCX, incorporating the $123 million loss disaster into the background rationale of the institutional design (according to a single source). This means the new regulations are not an abstract risk management exercise but a direct response to a specific tragedy: by implementing tiered custody, ratio caps, and reporting obligations, the single point of failure model of "one platform, one founder, one private key" is dismantled into a multi-node supervision structure.
● Urgency of regulation: In recent years, Canada's formal legislative progress in the field of crypto assets has been slow, with a complete higher-level legal framework lagging behind market development. CIRO chose to make the custody framework effective directly through membership terms, bypassing the lengthy parliamentary legislative process, essentially an emergency operation to "stop the bleeding" with self-regulatory organizational rules. For regulators, QuadrigaCX has proven that "the cost of waiting is far higher than trial and error," so even a temporary framework must be quickly implemented in a form of mandatory constraints.
Four-Tier Custody Layering: Who Can Take How Much Client Bitcoin
● Layered numbers: According to a single source, the new regulations classify custodians into four levels: first and second-tier custodians are allowed to hold up to 100% of client assets, meaning that under the premise of meeting compliance qualifications and risk control standards, they can undertake almost all custody demands; the cap for third-tier custodians is 75%, while fourth-tier custodians can only hold 40%. This set of numbers directly establishes the "ceiling" for different risk-level custody institutions in asset bearing, providing a clear regulatory benchmark for institutions when choosing partners.
● Risk assumptions: Behind the layered design is the regulator's systemic concern about "single point failures": the lower the tier, the higher the risk of custodians, the less client assets they are allowed to hold, institutionally limiting the chain reaction where a small to medium custodian's failure could drag down a large number of investors' assets. By segmenting risk exposure with ratio caps, CIRO attempts to find a compromise between "allowing diverse custodial participation" and "preventing a single weakness from triggering systemic shocks."
● Distrust in self-custody: Also according to a single source, the new framework limits traders' self-custody ratio to 20% or below, directly addressing the structural risks of the traditional "self-operated and custodial" model. Under the QuadrigaCX model, the platform acted as both facilitator and asset custodian, leading to extreme information asymmetry; once internal risk control or moral hazards fail, users are almost unaware. By compressing self-custody to 20%, it essentially requires trading platforms to transfer most assets to independent custodians, dismantling the potential conflict of interest of "being both the referee and the player."
● Hard constraints for high-tier custodians: For high-tier custodians qualified to take on more client assets, CIRO has also added asset segregation and strict reporting obligations (according to a single source). On one hand, client assets must be segregated from the custodian's own assets in terms of bookkeeping and on-chain identification, reducing the space for misappropriation and mixing; on the other hand, custodians must regularly submit detailed reports to regulators, replacing the past "black box trust" with data, audits, and continuous disclosures, allowing both regulators and institutions to identify risk accumulation earlier.
High Barriers to Custody Licenses: Institutional Pathway or Small Player Barrier
● Capital-intensive custody industry: According to the briefing (according to a single source), the new framework will impose "higher capital thresholds, regular cybersecurity audits," pushing digital asset custody from a relatively lightweight technical service to a capital-intensive, compliance-heavy model similar to traditional financial custodians. Although specific capital values and audit technical standards have not been disclosed, the direction is clear: not all tech companies can easily obtain custody licenses, and participants lacking sufficient capital and governance capabilities will be naturally excluded from the core track.
● Paving the way for institutional trust: Higher capital requirements and cybersecurity audits are seen by many market voices as "laying a clearer compliance path for institutional funds to enter Bitcoin" (according to a single source). For pension funds, asset management companies, and family offices, whether to trust Bitcoin is not the only issue; more crucially, it is whether to trust the custody chain. When custodians are required to bear higher capital constraints and undergo periodic cybersecurity reviews, institutions can more reliably score their internal controls and compliance assessments, thereby reducing the reputational and operational risks of entering this asset class.
● Industry concentration reshuffle: The direct side effect of high barriers is likely to squeeze the survival space of local small and medium custodians, allowing players with stronger capital, technology, and risk control systems to dominate. For the Canadian market, this means that custody business may gradually concentrate from previous fragmented competition to a few "compliance-heavy asset platforms." While this is beneficial for regulators to concentrate resources for in-depth supervision, it will also raise the entry barriers for new entrants, reducing the room for innovative custody models to experiment in the early stages.
● Uncertainty in cross-border custody: In the cross-border dimension, higher barriers are also interpreted by some market participants as foreign custodial institutions' layouts possibly being affected, such as selectively shrinking Canadian operations or raising service fees. However, such judgments currently remain at the level of directional speculation, belonging to unverified information, and lack any public data support for business contraction or client migration. The briefing also explicitly prohibits extrapolating related numbers, so at this stage, it can only be viewed as one of the potential scenarios, rather than an established fact.
The New Game Between Local Traders and Cross-Border Custody
● Self-custody being "cut down": Starting from the clause that traders' self-custody ratio is locked at 20%, it is clear to see the passive transformation of local trading platforms' business models: the previous reliance on self-held assets, internal wallets, and self-built cold storage systems will have to shift towards a structure that "relies more on compliant custodians." This not only changes the flow of funds but also restructures the platform's cost structure and technical focus—from developing their own custody systems to evaluating, integrating, and even binding external custody services.
● Asset competition under tiered limits: Under the constraints of tiered ratio caps, competition between local custodians and international custodial institutions in Canada will focus more on the battle of "who can take on more client asset quotas." High-tier qualifications mean being able to legally carry a larger proportion of client Bitcoin and other assets; if local institutions cannot meet high-tier requirements in terms of capital and compliance, they may be at a disadvantage in competition with cross-border leading custodians, thus outsourcing a large amount of local user assets to global custodial networks.
● Market concerns and information vacuum: Regarding the speculation that "foreign custodial institutions may reduce Canadian business due to higher capital requirements," it can currently only be presented as a carrier of market concern. The briefing clearly labels it as unverified information, and there are no quantitative data available regarding changes in business volume or client loss ratios for reference. Therefore, when analyzing the competitive landscape, it must be emphasized that there is currently no evidence to support this, and the regulatory effects are still in the expected and game phase.
● Model reconstruction and merger expectations: In the context of rising compliance costs and increased rigidity of custody outsourcing, the choice space for local participants is forcibly compressed. Some platforms may choose to merge and integrate, banding together to enhance capital strength and compliance capabilities; others may actively reduce asset-side risks, shifting towards a light-asset model focused on facilitation, order routing, and user interface services, completely outsourcing custody and balance sheet pressures to compliant custodians. Regardless of the path taken, the profit structure and competitive logic of Canadian crypto trading businesses will be rewritten.
Regulatory Fast Forward: Not Waiting for Perfect Legislation to "Keep the Door Closed"
● Self-regulatory rules take precedence: This custody framework does not stem from a complete higher-level law but takes effect directly through CIRO membership terms, imposing substantial constraints on its member institutions. Formally, it is defined as a "temporary" arrangement, but in terms of enforcement strength and compliance consequences, it possesses "rigid" characteristics—member institutions that do not comply still face the reality of penalties, business restrictions, or even expulsion.
● Filling the gaps before supplementing the law: This path of "first using self-regulatory organizational rules to fill gaps, then waiting for legislative refinement" has a practical impact on market participants: compliance expectations are no longer a distant blueprint but a reality variable that needs to be immediately incorporated into cost and technical planning. Custody architecture, partner selection, capital planning, etc., must now be scenario modeled according to the CIRO framework, even if the final legislation will make partial adjustments, it is unlikely to deviate from this basic direction.
● Switching rhythms and mindsets: Compared to the traditional financial sector's often "legislate first, then detail, and finally self-regulate" rhythm, this time the crypto custody rules resemble a turning point in regulatory mindset—shifting from long-term observation and passive responses to market events to proactive trial and error, shaping with self-regulatory organizational rules. For a regulatory system that has faced immense pressure in the global public opinion arena due to QuadrigaCX, this "fast forward" action is also a response to external doubts about its law enforcement and regulatory concepts.
● The gray area of the timeline: Although the framework has outlined the contours of custody layering, ratio caps, and some compliance obligations, the official implementation date and several supporting details have not been disclosed, including specific capital thresholds and cybersecurity audit standards. This means that the market can currently only conduct neutral or conservative scenario modeling based on the framework text, without precise quantification of landing time and cost curves. For institutions, it is now more about preparing for the "upcoming hard constraints" rather than executing point by point on a clear timeline.
Betting Between High Risk Control Walls and Bull Market Expectations
CIRO's layered custody framework attempts to build a middle path between two opposing forces: on one end is the long-term fear and political pressure brought by QuadrigaCX-style black swans, forcing regulators to build higher and stronger risk control walls; on the other end is the trend of Bitcoin and broadly defined crypto assets continuously penetrating mainstream institutional asset pools, requiring a path to entry that can be accepted by compliance departments and boards. Through a combination of tiered custody, ratio caps, asset segregation, and reporting obligations, the new regulations lower the risk of single point failures while reserving operational space for large custodial institutions and institutional investors.
For local traders, custodians, and potential cross-border service providers in Canada, this means that short-term pain is almost inevitable: the self-custody space has been significantly compressed, compliance and technical costs have risen sharply, and traditional business models face passive dismantling. However, in the longer term, the clarity of regulatory red lines and the increase in industry concentration may reshape a more robust custody landscape—those participants willing and able to "bet heavily" on capital, risk control, and governance will gain the qualification to establish a foothold in the wave of institutionalization.
Looking ahead, as the formal supporting details and capital requirement standards gradually take effect, Canada has the opportunity to form a regulatory model in the North American crypto custody landscape that is "higher in threshold and relatively clearer in path." It may not be the most friendly, but it could be the most realistic option under the current political and risk environment: drawing a narrow path that can be jointly accepted by regulators and the market for institutions and individuals betting on Bitcoin and other digital assets.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
