Fireblocks Says Banks Need Independent Checks of Onchain Records

Fireblocks is calling on banks to adopt independent verification of their onchain records, arguing that institutions connecting blockchain activity to existing accounting systems currently have no reliable way to prove the two match.

Tim Way, Fireblocks' Global Banking Initiatives Lead, laid out the case in an analysis published Nov. 11. The core problem: a bank's accounting software needs an intermediary that can carry blockchain activity into records its existing platforms can use, and the systems banks typically rely on can't independently confirm what the blockchain actually recorded.

"A control that relies on the system it is testing has tested nothing," Way wrote. Checking an internal ledger against the same process that produced it does not independently verify what the blockchain recorded, and a custodian's report alone does not provide an independent check either.

What does Fireblocks propose?

The company outlines a specific verification model. A verifier would:

• Read blockchain data from nodes it operates itself
• Reconcile transaction totals against historical balances
• Provide records of holdings at a specific past block

Fireblocks also recommends that banks pick a verifier whose relevant data-handling controls are covered by a SOC 1 Type II report. SOC 1 examinations assess a service provider's controls that may affect a customer's financial reporting controls — the kind of assurance an auditor would recognize.

What do banks themselves say is hard?

The push is grounded in survey data. A January 2026 survey of 638 decision makers at financial institutions and corporations found that 52% of financial institution respondents cited compliance and regulatory requirements as their top wallet infrastructure challenge. Integration with core banking and downstream systems came next at 47%, followed by security architecture and key management at 44% and operational readiness at 39%.

Financial and regulatory reporting ranked last among nine challenge areas, cited by just 3% of financial institution respondents. The survey captured challenges respondents named — it did not measure actual bank audit failures or reconciliation problems, a distinction that matters when weighing how urgent the verification gap is in practice.

Where do regulators stand?

The regulatory backdrop is permissive but not prescriptive. In March 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said national banks and federal savings associations may participate in independent node verification networks. That announcement did not require banks to use an outside verifier or a provider with a SOC 1 Type II report — leaving the specifics of onchain record verification to institutions themselves.

The verification question also connects to broader bank digital-asset custody controls, including who can initiate and approve transactions and how those actions are independently checked after the fact.

For now, banks building tokenization or custody programs face a structural choice: accept verification from the same stack that processed the transactions, or bring in a third party with its own nodes and audited controls. As more institutions connect onchain activity to books that external auditors must sign off on, expect independent verification to move from a nice-to-have to a due-diligence question.