Bitcoin Forum
November 07, 2024, 05:45:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Crypto custody insurance: a big step forward for crypto?  (Read 92 times)
Vincom (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 44

₿itcoin maximalist


View Profile
March 29, 2024, 12:57:15 AM
 #1

While insurance is commonplace for things like homes, cars, and even our health, it's not yet widely available for crypto. This gap exists because crypto are a relatively new asset class, and traditional insurance companies haven't established trust in the crypto industry. In the past, CEXs often created their own reserve funds to manage risk and compensate users in case of hacking incidents [1]. This approach highlights the current lack of mainstream insurance options for crypto.

The landscape of digital asset security is evolving. Insurance giant Marsh is launching a significant development: an 825M USD insurance facility specifically designed for custodians of digital assets. This product caters to organizations that store assets in the most secure method against cyber-attacks – offline "cold storage".  However, Marsh goes beyond traditional methods by also covering assets protected by innovative solutions like Multi-Party Computation, which fragments cryptographic keys for enhanced security, offering an additional layer of protection [2].

To me, this marks a significant leap towards both legitimizing and securing the crypto industry. By enabling CEXs to obtain insurance for assets held in cold storage, the process of safeguarding user funds becomes far more robust. This initial step will likely be followed by a wave of other insurance companies entering the market, offering competitive services. This increased competition will ultimately drive down costs and provide even better protection, fostering trust and accelerating mainstream adoption of crypto.

As a CEX user, I appreciate the ease of use, variety of features, and deep liquidity offered by CEXs. Binance is my current platform of choice, and I'm interested in seeing if they'll adopt this new insurance product.

I would like to know your views on crypto custody insurance:
  • Is insurance really important for CEXs and the crypto market?
  • Would you trust CEXs more if they used crypto insurance services?
  • Which CEX will be on board soonest to insure their users' assets?

References:
[1] Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU)
[2] Insurance Broker Marsh Introduces $825M Crypto Custody Coverage

“If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
Satoshi Nakamoto
btc78
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 218


⭕ BitList.co


View Profile
March 29, 2024, 01:21:53 AM
 #2

For those using decentralized exchanges, this isn’t really possible however centralized exchanges having responsibility and control over your money makes it much mire necessary for it to have insurance.

I think it would help a lot of people to prevent losing too much money in cases of emergency and on the other hand it also improves trust and confidence among their customers.

hugeblack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 3969



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2024, 01:57:20 AM
 #3

For the ordinary user who wants to withdraw his money to his wallet, he does not need such insurance. Bitcoin came to break trust in a third party, and creating cold storage properly will be enough to secure deposits. However, if you are talking about securing CEX funds, without the presence of government regulatory bodies that monitor customer deposits and give a guarantee for deposits. In the range of $50,000, $100,000, or $250,000, just as happens in banks, these funds will have a certain value, and we will not succeed in securing a percentage of the deposits, just like the Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU) Binance. $825 million would be a drop in the ocean compared to customer deposits.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
rodskee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 205


yahoo62278


View Profile
March 29, 2024, 06:14:54 AM
Last edit: March 29, 2024, 11:56:23 AM by rodskee
 #4


I would like to know your views on crypto custody insurance:
  • Is insurance really important for CEXs and the crypto market?
  • Would you trust CEXs more if they used crypto insurance services?
  • Which CEX will be on board soonest to insure their users' assets?


i think insurance is a step forward to adoption of bitcoin or crypto in general.

crypto is supposed to be decentralized by nature but many people choose or
prefer centralized exchanges which then insurance is necessary. Mainly because of
the worrying increases in scams and hacking activities.

centralized exchanges with huge amounts of clients would most likely be the
one to implement it first maybe binance as one of them

Volimack
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 13

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile
March 29, 2024, 05:36:32 PM
 #5

These insurances will not be effective for crypto because nobody will easily trust these decentralized exchanges in crypto to be scams. Centralized sites play an important role in insurance. Life is so uncertain that it is almost impossible to predict what may happen in the future insurance is a method that helps you plan for an uncertain future with confidence. With the insurance coverage you don't have to worry about financial uncertainty during tough times you can focus on the important things.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
PLINKO    |7| SLOTS     (+) ROULETTE    ▼ BIT SPINBITVESTPLAY or INVEST ║ ✔ Rainbot  ✔ Happy Hours  ✔ Faucet
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Vincom (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 44

₿itcoin maximalist


View Profile
March 30, 2024, 01:18:28 AM
Merited by hugeblack (2)
 #6

For the ordinary user who wants to withdraw his money to his wallet, he does not need such insurance. Bitcoin came to break trust in a third party, and creating cold storage properly will be enough to secure deposits. However, if you are talking about securing CEX funds, without the presence of government regulatory bodies that monitor customer deposits and give a guarantee for deposits. In the range of $50,000, $100,000, or $250,000, just as happens in banks, these funds will have a certain value, and we will not succeed in securing a percentage of the deposits, just like the Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU) Binance. $825 million would be a drop in the ocean compared to customer deposits.
I also understand that 825M USD is very small compared to the tens of billions of USD in user assets, but CEXs can completely split the storage and participate in many insurance contracts for them to ensure safety. Users who self-custody crypto assets will not care about this, but CEX users may be more comfortable knowing that their assets are secure and that in the worst case, CEXs will still have enough assets to compensate them.

“If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
Satoshi Nakamoto
hugeblack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 3969



View Profile WWW
March 30, 2024, 02:16:51 AM
 #7

I also understand that 825M USD is very small compared to the tens of billions of USD in user assets, but CEXs can completely split the storage and participate in many insurance contracts for them to ensure safety. Users who self-custody crypto assets will not care about this, but CEX users may be more comfortable knowing that their assets are secure and that in the worst case, CEXs will still have enough assets to compensate them.
Why would they do that? You need regulatory decisions from the government to force them. Otherwise, it would be easy for them to invest user assets in more advertisements or other investments and grow the user base quickly. In fact, the abuse of customer funds exists in banks even though they are highly regulated institutions, let alone CEXs which is multinational and there is weak regulatory over it.

FTX is an example of how mishandling customer funds can cause the platform to grow quickly and in a short period of time. As long as users can withdraw easily, no user will have to ask if their funds are insured.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
Churchillvv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 284



View Profile WWW
March 30, 2024, 02:58:55 AM
 #8

Although it's a good idea that for people to start adopting the insurance policies into crypto industry but in a rational sense does it not negate the initial purpose of self custodian wallets which we all advocate as the best for storing our crypto assets.

From the arguement of @hugeblack and including what I perceive personally I think that the idea is defeated already because the crypto insurance company mentioned above can not be able to handle a complete exchange assets because the capacity is limited to handle.

Infact generally if this insurance companies as proposed are going to be creating a cold storage wallet for storing this assets then what difference does it make from one creating his own cold storage wallet, the only special feature here is the fact that compensation is available for ones assets if eventually anything happens but that doesn't really matter for me because it will surely obstruct ones free will on how and when to take ones assets.
Vincom (OP)
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 44

₿itcoin maximalist


View Profile
March 31, 2024, 01:15:02 AM
Merited by hugeblack (2)
 #9

Why would they do that? You need regulatory decisions from the government to force them. Otherwise, it would be easy for them to invest user assets in more advertisements or other investments and grow the user base quickly. In fact, the abuse of customer funds exists in banks even though they are highly regulated institutions, let alone CEXs which is multinational and there is weak regulatory over it.

FTX is an example of how mishandling customer funds can cause the platform to grow quickly and in a short period of time. As long as users can withdraw easily, no user will have to ask if their funds are insured.
After the FTX incident, CEXs have announced proof of reserves to gain user trust. Proof of reserves proves that CEXs are holding enough user assets instead of using them for CEXs own purposes as in the case of FTX. The same could happen for the existence of insurance contracts for CEXs crypto assets: it affirms that in case CEXs have problems with hackers, CEXs' losses will be compensated and users will not be affected.

In the past, Binance was hacked and Binance used its budget to compensate users, which is also good but not guaranteed on any basis. An insurance contract will help users trust and use CEXs more regularly, CEXs will have more users and revenue from transaction fees.

With this insurance contract, CEXs may not need to maintain their own funds like SAFU, they can use this money more effectively to generate more profits for CEXs and provide more value to users.

Although it's a good idea that for people to start adopting the insurance policies into crypto industry but in a rational sense does it not negate the initial purpose of self custodian wallets which we all advocate as the best for storing our crypto assets.

From the arguement of @hugeblack and including what I perceive personally I think that the idea is defeated already because the crypto insurance company mentioned above can not be able to handle a complete exchange assets because the capacity is limited to handle.

Infact generally if this insurance companies as proposed are going to be creating a cold storage wallet for storing this assets then what difference does it make from one creating his own cold storage wallet, the only special feature here is the fact that compensation is available for ones assets if eventually anything happens but that doesn't really matter for me because it will surely obstruct ones free will on how and when to take ones assets.
I think we should wait for a first case to join crypto insurance, I hope it will be Coinbase or Binance. Currently, I understand that if they join the insurance, CEXs will need to prove the reserve in cold wallets or use MPC, then pay a corresponding amount of insurance premium to the insurance company to be able to be compensated up to 825M USD in case the reserve is attacked and damaged.

I am also very curious about the application of insurance for crypto, I want to understand more clearly to be more confident when using and storing a part of my assets on CEXs.

“If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
Satoshi Nakamoto
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!