Two different models
A custodial service generally controls the underlying wallet infrastructure and maintains a customer account balance inside its own system.
A non-custodial wallet is designed so the customer controls or authorizes blockchain wallet activity directly.
Neither model removes every risk
Custodial services introduce counterparty and account-withdrawal risk. Self-custody introduces greater responsibility for authorization, device security and transaction accuracy.
Users should evaluate architecture, security controls, operational transparency and the exact features they plan to use.
Quick comparison
| Topic | Non-custodial wallet | Custodial account |
|---|---|---|
| Transaction authority | Customer-controlled or customer-authorized wallet activity. | Provider controls the wallet infrastructure and approves account withdrawals. |
| Counterparty dependence | Less dependence on a provider holding an internal account balance. | User depends more directly on the custodian for access and withdrawals. |
| User responsibility | Greater responsibility for authorization, device security and address accuracy. | Provider handles more of the wallet infrastructure. |
| Reversibility | Blockchain transactions are generally difficult or impossible to reverse. | Internal platform operations may sometimes be adjusted before blockchain withdrawal. |