Custody Is the Conversation Now

Three years ago the first question from a media company's technical side was which chain. Now it is who holds the keys, under what controls, and what happens when the person holding them leaves.

That shift is the clearest sign we have that this market is maturing into something an institution can actually participate in.

Why the question got harder, not easier

Consumer custody improved a great deal. Institutional custody for assets that are simultaneously a financial instrument and a rights artefact is a genuinely awkward problem, and it is not fully solved. A treasury desk knows how to custody a token. It does not know what to do with a token that carries a licence whose terms constrain what the holder may do with the underlying content.

What we ask providers

What is the recovery path if the signing quorum is unavailable? Who can authorise a transfer, and is that the same set of people who can authorise a licence amendment? What is the audit trail, and does it satisfy a media company's existing controls or does it require new ones? Does the arrangement survive a corporate restructure?

Most providers answer the first two well. The last two separate the serious from the rest.

Where this is heading

Toward custody that understands rights, not just keys. The teams building in that direction are solving a problem that every institutional participant will hit, and almost nobody is working on it. It is the clearest gap in our thesis and we have been actively looking for a year.