at a $150/month service fee, I don't think it will be the way for too many.
Discussion
Defo more for the mega rich who don’t want the responsibility of looking after it, but are smart enough to not let one party control their asssts
Does make me laugh the pricing information though, how can they charge more for you owning more bitcoin in your multisig lol, doesn’t cause them any more overhead
I except this type of company will become more prevalent as more non techie people start to hold it.
But it's like holding a security box in a bank vault, banks don't make enough money from this activity, but they have other activities that do.
Coinbase provide custodial services for ETFs and private companies, but they don't rely on the income to make profit.
Without other activities, these companies won't last long.
It seems it couldn't be mere coincidence that the $250K threshold matches the FDIC limit... maybe they have private insurance that's set up to match the same expectations as a fiat bank... or maybe they just figure that someone with more than $250K would be willing to pay more because they perceive it as better than the uninsured fiat alternative.
BTW, this just sounds like a lie (at least, it's grossly misleading):
"You have full control of your bitcoin (not a custodian)"
Sorry, having to rely on 2 entities other than yourself to sign any of your transactions can't reasonably be considered 'full' control.
Agree 💯
You giving up your keys is never “full control”
But I guess for some at least, we need to build trust models on top of Bitcoins “trustless” model.
Totally. Everything else makes it clear what the deal is... they could have just left out the 'full control' fiction. It makes it seem like they're trying to pull one over on someone who doesn't necessarily know better (i.e. their target audience).