Bitget Launches Open Custody Network for Institutional Trading

By Elena Vasquez

On November 5, Bitget announced the launch of its Open Custody Network, or OCN, according to the exchange’s release. The network connects external banks and institutional-grade custodians with Bitget’s trading infrastructure for eligible users, allowing trading through the venue while a separate provider holds the underlying assets.

The announcement did not identify any participating banks or custodians, eligible jurisdictions, supported assets or operating metrics. Nor did it provide contract terms demonstrating that the separation would reduce risk uniformly across the service, meaning the practical benefit remains conditional on the final custody and settlement design.

For large crypto exchanges, combining trading and asset safekeeping has offered convenience while concentrating exposure in the same institution. Customers depend on that platform’s technology, operational controls, governance and financial health, so a failure can interrupt access to both execution and the underlying assets.

Independent custody can reduce some of that concentration when the trading venue lacks unilateral control over deposited assets. It does not remove every dependency, however, because settlement obligations, pre-authorised transfers, credit arrangements and shared service providers can connect the otherwise separated functions.

NewsBTC’s reporting on Aave restricting new tBTC activity following a pause in minting and redemption illustrated that risk can arise from the links between components, even when each component appears technically sound. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether assets sit outside an exchange, but who can move them and under what conditions.

In plain terms, off-exchange storage reduces concentration only when legal control and operational dependencies remain genuinely separate.

How can trades settle without moving the coins?

Fast trading platforms must know that obligations can be settled. Traditional markets address that requirement through clearing, collateral and regulated intermediaries, while crypto venues have often simplified settlement by holding assets directly in customer accounts on the exchange.

OCN would leave assets with external custodians, requiring Bitget’s infrastructure to represent collateral and complete settlement without a conventional asset transfer for every trade. That arrangement creates design choices around collateral efficiency, counterparty exposure and settlement finality, particularly when a venue must establish what it owes before a trade settles.

The model may offer institutions a more familiar division between trading and safekeeping, but that advantage weakens if collateral treatment, withdrawal rights or insolvency protections differ by asset or jurisdiction. Bitget’s announcement describes the intended architecture, not the contractual mechanics that would determine how the network performs under stress.

The company also has not established that every partner offers identical services, that every user qualifies for the arrangement or that the structure eliminates exchange risk. Its broader claims require comparison with binding terms and evidence from actual operations.

In practical terms, trading can continue without moving assets only if the system defines collateral and settlement obligations clearly enough to withstand a market or operational shock.

What should institutions verify before using OCN?

Prospective clients need information that the November 5 release does not presently provide. Their diligence should cover the following:

• The identities of participating banks and institutional-grade custodians, together with the jurisdictions in which the service operates.
• The method used to secure trading obligations when assets remain with an external custodian.
• How positions are reconciled between the trading venue, custodian and beneficial owner.
• How assets can be retrieved if Bitget, a custodian or another partner fails or suspends operations.
• The segregation terms, withdrawal authority and legal ownership of client assets.

Independent security assessments would also help test the technical and operational controls behind the structure. Those reviews matter because institutional-grade custody is a category, not evidence that every provider applies the same safeguards or bears the same liabilities.

Several core legal questions require particular attention. Institutions need to determine who holds legal title, who can initiate a withdrawal and whether either party can block access during a dispute or insolvency. They should also identify where credit and settlement obligations sit if the trading venue cannot complete a transaction.

In plain terms, the architecture will matter less than the contracts governing control, segregation and recovery when something fails.

What will determine whether OCN changes market structure?

The direction of institutional digital-asset markets increasingly resembles other financial markets, where trading, custody, collateral and settlement operate as distinct functions. Bitget is responding to that expectation, but the announcement alone does not show how extensively its proposed separation will extend beyond eligible clients or particular assets.

The forward test is whether Bitget and its partners disclose governing custody, settlement and withdrawal terms for each supported asset and jurisdiction. Until that evidence appears, OCN is best viewed as a structural proposal rather than proof that exchange-failure risk has been removed.