Today, we’re joined by Wendy Jiang - General Manager of Cactus Custody!
Chris: What gap in the market did you see that led to the creation of Cactus Custody, and why did you choose to focus on the institutional side of digital asset custody?
Wendy: In the mid-2010s, most crypto users relied on self-custody tools that were not designed for institutional scale, which in some cases led to loss events and operational errors. As public blockchains matured, institutions entered the market but often lacked neutral, auditable and scalable custody with clear segregation from trading venues.
We founded Cactus Custody in 2018 to provide professional third-party custody with independent governance, segregated accounts and rigorous controls. The events of 2022, notably the failure of FTX, underscored the importance of custody from trading venues through segregated accounts and independent governance. Our focus remains on institutional needs, where assurance, auditability and operational resilience are non-negotiable.
Chris: Custody has traditionally been a conservative, compliance-heavy space. What was the biggest challenge in marrying innovation in DeFi with institutional-grade security?
Wendy: The challenge is enabling DeFi access while maintaining security controls. Our DeFi Connector, delivered via Cactus Link, allows interaction with protocols that have undergone internal risk review across more than 30 chains. Where available, we support private transaction routing to reduce MEV exposure and offer pre-execution simulation to help minimise operational errors. For staking, we work with institutional operators that meet our internal review standards so that clients may access protocol rewards without adding an extra smart-contract layer. Risks such as slashing and validator downtime remain and are transparently managed within our governance framework.
Chris: Being a licensed TCSP in Hong Kong, how do you see the regulatory environment evolving for custodians in Asia compared to the U.S. and Europe?
Wendy: In Hong Kong, we operate under a TCSP licence from the Companies Registry, ensuring adherence to AML/CTF and governance requirements. More broadly, evolving guidance from regional regulators is establishing clearer standards for crypto-asset custody, segregation, record-keeping, and disclosures. Jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Singapore have set higher bars around safekeeping of client assets and operational risk controls for digital-asset service providers.
In the European Union, MiCA establishes a harmonised framework for crypto-asset service providers. In the United States, rule-making and supervisory guidance continue to tighten expectations around the use of qualified custodians and segregation of client assets.
The direction across jurisdictions is consistent: stronger safeguards, clearer accountability and more rigorous oversight of custody practices.
Chris: How does your “ultimate remote disaster recovery” function in practice — could Cactus Custody survive an event like a data center failure or even a regional outage?
Wendy: Yes. Resilience is a core consideration in how we design our infrastructure. We operate across multiple top-tier facilities in Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore, ensuring physical separation between environments. Keys are HSM-bound (FIPS 140-3 Level 3) and recovered using quorum-based key-share processes. We maintain immutable logs, continuously monitor system health and regularly conduct disaster-recovery drills.
We aim to minimise both downtime and data loss, with controlled failover to secondary sites designed to keep client operations running smoothly even in the event of a single-site or regional outage.
Chris: The “four-eye principle” is a key feature for your custody. How does this governance model work, and why is it so important for institutional clients?
Wendy: High-risk actions require approvals from two authorised individuals in distinct roles under a documented matrix, with strict duty segregation and access controls. This materially reduces the risk of internal fraud, mistakes or unauthorised actions, and it aligns with regulatory and audit expectations. For institutions managing large portfolios, dual oversight is a core governance control that enhances operational integrity and supports client confidence.
Chris: With your trading integration, how do clients benefit from being able to move seamlessly between custody and execution — without sacrificing security?
Wendy: Our Off-Exchange Settlement (OES), Cactus Oasis, keeps assets in a segregated Oasis Account and allocates only what is required to Buffer Accounts at partner venues such as Bybit and Bitget. This helps reduce venue exposure and enables rapid transfers without client-paid on-chain gas for movements inside the OES network.
Controls include dual authorisation, customisable workflows, comprehensive KYC/KYB/KYT and near-real-time reconciliations. Insurance may also be arranged through third-party providers, subject to policy terms. The approach is designed to support stronger counterparty risk management while improving operational efficiency for active traders.
Chris: Mining pools, OTC desks, exchanges, and lending platforms all have different needs. Which segment is adopting custody fastest, and what unique demands do they bring?
Wendy: Exchanges are adopting third-party custody at the fastest pace, as regulatory expectations rise and operational assurance becomes central to market trust. They require, as a standard expectation, segregated client accounts, real-time audit trails and integration with settlement workflows such as OES.
Mining pools look for secure, high-throughput treasury operations and policy-based payouts. OTC desks prioritise confidential large-ticket settlement and escrow-style workflows. Lending platforms focus on collateral management, monitoring and connectivity to risk controls. Our platform is designed to support these requirements with institutional controls, chain and venue integrations, and scalable governance processes.
Chris: For crypto exchanges, you position yourself as a “secure backbone.” Do you see a future where exchanges outsource custody entirely to providers like you?
Wendy: Yes, we expect more exchanges to outsource custody to specialist providers as assurance, segregation and independent oversight become increasingly important for market confidence. By providing segregated accounts, audit trails and integration with off-exchange settlement, we enable exchanges to focus on liquidity and execution while aligning with higher standards for control and transparency.
Chris: You support blue-chip NFTs like Cryptopunks, BAYC, and Beeple in cold storage. Do you see institutions viewing NFTs as serious long-term assets, or is it still an experiment for them?
Wendy: Institutional interest has become more selective. We see blue-chip collections such as CryptoPunks and Bored Ape Yacht Club, along with high-value works by leading artists such as Beeple, considered as niche strategic holdings rather than speculative trades. Secure cold storage, clear provenance and valuation policies are encouraging measured adoption as part of diversified alternative-asset allocations.
Chris: Looking ahead, what role do you see Cactus Custody playing in shaping the future of institutional adoption of digital assets?
Wendy: We are working to expand licensing coverage, deepen integrations aimed at reducing counterparty exposure, and further strengthen governance and reporting for institutions. We also support real-world-asset tokenisation with established controls and audit processes—for example, enabling custody and operations for tokenised real-world assets through partners.
Our role is to provide infrastructure designed for neutrality and resilience, so that institutions can deploy digital-asset strategies with confidence, from DeFi access to tokenised assets and exchange settlement—all within a unified and controlled operating framework.
xrp
usdt
