That’s right! Thats what’s coming down next for sure. They’re going to cock block us on custody rules for qualified account holdings. IRS will provide guidance next year and it for sure won’t favor the trustee holding keys. The goal is to push everyone to their Bolshevik banking cartel custodians. I tried to talk to the OnRamp guys, but I think that’s a dead end. I like Jesse and nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy and nostr:npub1pyp9fqq60689ppds9ec3vghsm7s6s4grfya0y342g2hs3a0y6t0segc0qq but their CEO is a bit of a young dismissive know-it-all corporate shill type who hasn’t spent more than a few years anywhere. Slick tongue but my spidee senses go off. The multi-sig multi-institutional multi-jurisdictional option makes a ton of sense. We need a more mature shop/fund like nostr:npub1nvxnc8egjlhpqtzrxmav3yk8frf3p7y9wujgwrcgwep2xr77xrvsa0paqn with nostr:npub1uyz4w2w4rcphk0q5arzkutrecgscxwzajj4dkvh9mjyqjtxslm6qea8632 to fire something up. Otherwise, multi-sig across multiple safe deposit boxes both onshore and offshore? How they gonna audit that or the “device” for that matter? Its a tough paradigm shift but mine is shifting towards working with larger shop who has an aligned worldview, resources, experience, foresight to weather the storm rather than trying to hack the system or have BTC locked up for an indefinite period of time. What say you?
Discussion
I'm navigating - or fighting - that right now. I think an IRA should be held in a multi-sig with the owner having 2-of-3 keys. That allows the custodian to still have visibility into whether those BTC move, but "your keys/your coin" so you can't get rug-pulled.
My IRA is with Swan, and they dodged bullets with both Prime and Fortress Trust. I know they have other partnerships now, but it is all 3rd party risk.
However, it is Swan's opinion they must hold all the key to keep the IRS from defining it as having "unfettered access" to move the BTC...even if you have auditability via the timechain. Unchained does allow the multi-sig...but they might be making assumptions, based upon no perfectly aligned legal precedent...that the IRS will not view the Bitcoin like they did the gold in the McNulty case.
Having said that, I think Swan will now support the "checkbook IRA" setup...but they basically say if the IRS comes for their 10% penalty + capital gains, that is the risk we take to have the quorum on the multi-sig keys to prevent rug pull.
Careful with SWAN. I did some recon earlier in the year and smelled the issues with their Trust, as well as their process overall. I don’t believe their qualified account structure has the same compliance and/or a determination letter from the IRS that Broadfinancial has. Also, when you flip into that kind of structure, you have to do the custodial work like Form 5500. SO many people are gonna get rekt because they didn’t do the compliance work. Having spent over a decade in transactional processing and banking, I promise that’s what’s coming next. Not some big rug pull that most people here suggest. It’s the frog in the boiling pot method….compliance/regulatory enforcement > institutional push > tax to the max > make examples of people like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx who think they’re gonna live in a black market economy ;)