Recent allegations involving Coinbase have surfaced a problem that many in the crypto space have quietly recognised but few have resolved: companies holding bitcoin on their balance sheets cannot easily demonstrate who controls the money, who approves its movement, or whether it is still there. As Onramp CEO Michael Tang argues, corporate adoption of bitcoin will stall until custody arrangements provide the same governance standards that boards expect from bank and brokerage accounts — independent verification, clear audit trails, and dual controls. The issue is not unique to one platform; it is structural in how bitcoin custody has developed.
The lesson here is timeless. A well-known principle in trade holds that when a date palm is sold, the fruit belongs to the seller unless the buyer explicitly stipulates otherwise. That principle — clarity in agreements — is the foundation of trustworthy exchange. Every other asset a company touches comes with governance as default. A board knows who can move cash from the corporate account and who signs off. Bitcoin custody, by contrast, often operates as a black box where the company has limited visibility into the custodian’s internal controls. This gap is not just a technical problem; it is a trust problem.
The path forward is not complicated, but it requires the industry to prioritise transparency over convenience. Custodians that offer independent attestation, multi-signature control, and clear contractual terms for asset movement will earn institutional confidence. Regulators can also help by setting baseline governance standards, much as they do for traditional clearing and settlement. The goal is not to stifle innovation but to ensure that bitcoin’s promise of self-sovereignty does not become a justification for opaque systems that undermine the very trust they aim to replace.
Until every company holding bitcoin can answer the same questions its board asks about cash and securities — who controls it, who approves changes, and when was the last independent audit — the allegations we see today will keep recurring. That is not a failure of bitcoin itself but a failure to apply old wisdom to new tools.