In recent years, digital assets have become an important part of the global financial system. Additionally, governments are not merely regulators of digital currencies like cryptocurrencies or stablecoins; they are also custodians of digital assets, having seized digital assets through law enforcement actions or accumulated limited amounts using various regulatory enforcement tools (i.e., virtual assets are limited to small amounts being held by state authorities). The total combined value of digital assets, mainly in Bitcoin, is sometimes in the tens of billions of dollars based on blockchain analysis of blockchain activity, court records and publicly available disclosures. There is no single definitive global number for the total amount of digital assets held by governments due to market volatility and the lack of transparency across many jurisdictions.
Traditional financial reserve assets are managed by central banking authorities using traditional banking systems. In the case of cryptocurrencies, the main method of control is through cryptographic private keys. If the keys are lost, stolen or mismanaged (inadvertently or intentionally), access to the asset may be permanently lost. As a result, many governments are now developing what is referred to as sovereign custody frameworks, which are designed to secure their state-owned digital assets through the means of a combination of cryptographic security, institutional governance and legal oversight of those digital assets.
Furthermore, as governments around the world adapt to this ever-changing environment, they are considering not only how to manage their seized digital assets but are beginning to view digital assets, in particular Bitcoin, as strategically important financial instruments. However, each country has varied degrees of formality, sophistication and authority regarding their digital asset custody frameworks.
Understanding Sovereign Custody
Definition
Sovereign custody is defined as the technical, operational, and legal infrastructure employed by governments to store, manage, and control cryptocurrencies under state ownership.
Unlike private or corporate custody, sovereign custody is required to meet three criteria:
Security: Resistant to cyber-attacks and insider abuse
Institutional control: Joint control by government agencies
Legal accountability: Compliant with national laws and judicial procedures
Sources of Government Digital Assets
Governments derive their digital assets from:
Criminal asset seizures and forfeitures
Enforcement actions
Court-ordered confiscations
Limited experimental or policy-driven purchases
Since these assets are of public value, their management requires a higher level of security and transparency than private crypto assets.
Why Government Crypto Custody Is So Complex and Unique
Government crypto custody is a completely different animal from private crypto custody.
The main issues that arise in government crypto custody are:
Size of assets: The value of the cryptocurrencies in government custody can be in the billions.
Multi-entity control: More than one entity can control the assets.
Irreversible transactions: Transactions on the blockchain are irreversible.
Legal restrictions: Transactions involving the assets must be authorized.
Security: The systems are high-value targets for attacks.
Because of these issues, governments use multiple-layer security solutions rather than single-key wallets.
Key Technical Components of Sovereign Custody
Multi-Signature (Multi-Sig) Wallet Solutions
What Multi-Sig Entails
A multi-signature wallet is one that necessitates the use of several cryptographic keys to validate a transaction. A “3-of-5” multi-sig wallet, for instance, necessitates at least three of five authorized keys to validate a transaction.
Why Governments Employ Multi-Sig
While governments do not openly communicate their wallet setups, it is generally assumed, based on crypto usage trends among institutions, that multi-signature solutions or similar distributed control solutions are employed in sovereign custody arrangements.
Multi-sig benefits governments by:
Preventing unauthorized asset transfer
Minimizing insider threats
Removing single points of failure
Complying with institutional checks and balances
Common Institutional Breakdown of Keys
While particular breakdowns are not publicly known, keys are generally presumed to be allocated among:
Treasury or finance departments
Central banks or monetary authorities
Law enforcement agencies
Independent oversight or audit agencies
This breakdown is based on the separation of powers and accountability within institutions.
Multi-Party Computation (MPC)
What MPC Entails
Multi-Party Computation (MPC) is an advanced cryptographic technique that allows multiple parties to jointly authorize transactions without ever reconstructing a full private key in one place. Instead of creating and storing a single private key, MPC splits key control into cryptographic shares that independently sign parts of a transaction.
At no point does any participant possess the complete private key, significantly reducing the risk of key compromise.
Why MPC Is Relevant to Sovereign Custody
MPC is increasingly viewed as a suitable alternative or complement to traditional multi-signature systems, particularly for institutions managing high-value digital assets. For governments, MPC offers strong security while enabling flexible institutional workflows.
Key advantages of MPC for sovereign custody include:
Elimination of full private key exposure
Reduced risk of theft, coercion, or insider misuse
Strong alignment with multi-agency authorization models
Compatibility with institutional compliance requirements
Unlike multi-sig, which creates visible on-chain signatures, MPC often appears on-chain as a standard transaction, reducing public visibility into internal custody mechanisms.
Institutional Use Considerations
Although no government has publicly confirmed MPC usage, its growing adoption by financial institutions suggests it is increasingly viable for sovereign custody environments where security, discretion, and governance are equally important.
Air-Gapped Cold Storage
What Air-Gapping Entails
Air-gapping involves separating critical systems from the outside world, including the internet. In crypto storage, air-gapped systems are employed for the offline creation and storage of private keys.
Commonly Cited Practices
While the specifics of government infrastructure are not revealed, common practices include the following:
Offline hardware wallets
Secure key-generating devices
Physically isolated computers
Access-controlled storage environments
Security Advantages
Air-gapped storage provides the following advantages:
Lower risk of cyberattacks from outside sources
Protection against malware and hacking attempts
Limited access to private keys from outside sources
The combination of cold storage and air-gapping is recognized as a best practice for handling valuable digital assets.
Distributed Key Management and Operational Security
In addition to multi-sig and air-gapping, governments also use operational security measures to manage cryptographic keys.
Common Institutional Practices (Inferred)
Distributing key pieces in multiple locations
Utilizing hardware security modules (HSMs)
Adopting rigorous access control procedures
Performing periodic security audits
Establishing redundancy and disaster recovery plans
These practices are inferred because the specific procedures are not publicly disclosed. These are general institutional security models and not necessarily blueprints used by governments.
Legislative and Legal Controls (“Legislative Locks”)
Role of Law in Sovereign Custody
Unlike crypto asset holders, governments cannot transfer digital assets simply because of their technical capabilities. Legal systems regulate the use of state-held digital assets.
Examples of Legislative Controls
These controls may vary depending on the country’s laws. They include:
Court orders for disposing of assets
Administrative approvals from treasury or finance departments
Regulatory agency oversight
Reporting requirements to legislative branches
These controls ensure that digital asset management is in line with the country’s laws and democratic principles.
Why Legislative Locks Matter
Legislative controls:
Prevent unauthorized asset movements
Ensure legal legitimacy of transactions
Provide transparency and oversight
Align crypto custody with traditional public finance governance
Typical Workflow of Sovereign Crypto Custody
Although the exact workflow may differ from one country to another, a generalized workflow of sovereign custody can be explained as follows:
Acquisition of digital assets through legal or regulatory actions
Secure offline generation of cryptographic keys
Distribution of key access among authorized institutions
Storage of assets in cold wallets and air-gapped environments
Continuous monitoring and periodic audits
Legal authorization for asset transfers or liquidation
Documentation and reporting to relevant authorities
This workflow shows how the technical security and legal governance systems work in tandem in sovereign custody.