Proof Of Custody

io.github.onrampbtc由 GitHub 账号 onrampbtc 发布v1.1.0更新于 Oct 27, 2026

Bitcoin custody scores, failure registry, ETF custody, stablecoin and x402 data, source router.

发布方自己的服务：Proof Holdings

已验证Streamable HTTP可网页运行金融知识与记忆数据与分析

服务详情

标识符: io.github.onrampbtc/proof-of-custody
传输: Streamable HTTP
运行时: Web executable
信任: Verified
发布于: Oct 20, 2026

安全提示

MCP 服务会接收对话中的工具调用请求，并可能执行外部操作。启用前请先了解该服务能做什么，并只授予它所需的权限。

注册中心已验证此条目所属的 GitHub 账号 onrampbtc。这并不表明该账号就是产品方。

SourceWeft 的检查只涵盖条目是否完整、端点是否响应；不审查服务器的代码，也不审查其工具的行为。

在 README 中添加徽章

向读者展示该 MCP 服务已收录于 SourceWeft，徽章链接到本页。

[![Listed on SourceWeft](https://sourceweft.com/badge/mcp/io.github.onrampbtc%2Fproof-of-custody.svg)](https://sourceweft.com/mcp/io.github.onrampbtc%2Fproof-of-custody?utm_source=readme&utm_medium=badge)

概览

AI 生成的概览

只读远程 MCP 服务器，提供 Proof of Custody 的比特币与加密资产托管评分、事故登记、ETF 托管数据及市场快照。

可以做什么: 搜索并查询托管平台评分，含分项得分、托管模式、费用、保险与单点故障
并排比较多个平台，并按四支柱标准评估托管安排的独立性
列出托管事故记录，查询 Coldcard 熵缺陷的实时状态
获取硬件钱包评分细则与 ETF 托管人集中度分析
拉取稳定币供应量、代币化资产与 x402 代理支付服务的每日快照
按主题路由到来源、查看近期变更、监控持有人的交易对手，并全文检索播客文字稿
适用场景: 适合回答比特币托管方案选择、自托管与多签设计、硬件钱包风险、ETF 托管人集中度，以及稳定币和代币化资产市场规模等问题，尤其当需要可引用、带日期的数据集而非模型常识时。
运行要求: 远程 streamable HTTP 端点；未声明任何软件包、API 密钥或环境变量。需要能访问该服务商的端点。

安装前请注意

属于只读数据服务，但数据集由 Onramp Bitcoin 发布，而该公司本身也是被评分的平台之一；覆盖范围为选择性收录而非全量，损失数字为具名来源的报道值，评分带有截止日期。用于财务决策前应核实最新事实。

安装

在 SourceWeft 中

打开控制台中的 Proof Of Custody，将其添加到工作区。
为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。

Web executable，通过 Streamable HTTP。远程服务在工作区中配置后即可从网页运行时运行。

交给智能体安装

把这段提示词粘贴到 Claude Code、Codex、Cursor 等智能体，或 SourceWeft 对话中。智能体会读取该服务器的安装指南，先向你展示发布者、端点和登录方式，经你同意后再把它添加到你的客户端。密钥不会写进任何命令。

阅读 https://sourceweft.com/mcp/io.github.onrampbtc%2Fproof-of-custody/install.md，并按其中说明把这个 MCP 服务器接入我的客户端。修改任何配置之前，先告诉我它的发布者、端点和登录方式，等我确认。不要把 API 密钥写进命令或我会提交的文件；问我密钥应从哪里获取。

查看智能体所依据的安装指南

其他 MCP 客户端

把它添加到你客户端的 mcpServers 配置中。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "proof-of-custody": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://proofofcustody.io/api/mcp"
    }
  }
}

README

Bitcoin custody dataset

Independent scores, failure history and model definitions for bitcoin custody, published as data rather than as prose. Free to use, including commercially and including to ground or evaluate a model, as long as you say where it came from.

Licence: CC BY 4.0 · Source: proofofcustody.io · Citation: Proof of Custody, Bitcoin custody dataset, https://proofofcustody.io/datasets

Disclosure: Proof of Custody is published by Onramp Bitcoin. Onramp appears in this dataset and is scored by the same methodology as every other platform, including in the categories where it does badly. If you find a place where that is not true, open an issue.

What is in here

File	Rows	What it holds
`data/bitcoin-custody-dataset.json` / `.csv`	91 platforms	Overall score and all six category scores, custody model, fee display, minimum, audience, and the single point of failure we recorded for each platform
`data/custody-incidents.json`	Registry plus live incidents	Dated custody failures, the configurations each failure class could reach, the reported loss and the named source
`data/hardware-wallet-scores.json`	Assessed devices	Six-dimension rubric scores with the written rationale for every single score
`data/custody-models.json`	6 models	What each custody model is, who it suits, who it does not suit, and where it fails

Every file is also served live at https://proofofcustody.io/data/<filename> and carries its own citation line, as-of date and disclosure inside the payload.

The scoring methodology

Six weighted categories, applied identically to every platform:

Category	Weight	What it measures
Custody and security	35%	Key management architecture, single points of failure, custodian distribution, physical exposure, jurisdictional diversity, insurance
Ease of use	20%	Onboarding, interface, operational burden on the holder
Fees	15%	Total cost of holding, including spreads and custody fees
Features	10%	Capability that changes what happens to your bitcoin: recovery options, inheritance mechanism, withdrawal controls, trust and entity titling, exit and migration
Transparency	10%	Proof of reserves, public documentation, disclosure conduct
Support	10%	Reachability and quality of help when something is wrong

Full methodology, including how to apply it to an arrangement we have never scored: https://proofofcustody.io/methodology

Features was re-scoped on 23 September 2026. It previously rewarded product catalogue breadth (IRA availability, lending, card rewards, DCA, Lightning). Because this site is published by a company that sells several of those products, that definition could award points for resembling the publisher. It now scores only capability that changes custody outcomes. Scores are recomputed under the new definition at the October 2026 run, and the dated entry is in the changelog.

Field reference: platform scores

Field	Type	Notes
`name`, `slug`, `url`, `website`	string	`url` is the Proof of Custody record; `website` is the platform's own site
`category`	string	`custody`, `buy-exchange`, `ira`, `etf`, `yield`, `hardware`
`custodyLabel`	string	The custody model as operated, for example "Multi-Institution Custody", "Single Custodian", "Collaborative Multisig"
`assetClass`	string or null	`bitcoin`, `stablecoin`, `tokenized-asset`
`overallScore`	integer 0-100	Weighted total of the six categories
`scores`	object	`custody`, `ease`, `fees`, `features`, `transparency`, `support`, each 0-100
`audienceType`	string	Who the platform is built for, in its own terms
`minimumInvestment`, `feeDisplay`	string	As published by the platform
`singlePointOfFailure`	string	The thing that has to fail for the holder to lose access
`highlight`, `risk`	string	The strongest and weakest thing we found

Sample queries

bash

# The ten highest custody scores, name and score onlycurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/bitcoin-custody-dataset.json \  | jq -r '.data | sort_by(-.scores.custody) | .[:10] | .[] | "\(.scores.custody)  \(.name)"'
# Every platform where one company holds all the keyscurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/bitcoin-custody-dataset.json \  | jq -r '.data[] | select(.custodyLabel | test("Single Custodian"; "i")) | .name'
# What a given failure class could reachcurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/custody-incidents.json \  | jq -r '.incidents[] | "\(.date)  \(.name)  [\(.exposedConfigs | join(", "))]"'
# Hardware rubric, worst entropy scores first, with the reasoncurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/hardware-wallet-scores.json \  | jq -r '.devices | sort_by(.scores.entropy) | .[] | "\(.scores.entropy)  \(.name): \(.rationale.entropy)"'

# The ten highest custody scores, name and score onlycurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/bitcoin-custody-dataset.json \  | jq -r '.data | sort_by(-.scores.custody) | .[:10] | .[] | "\(.scores.custody)  \(.name)"'
# Every platform where one company holds all the keyscurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/bitcoin-custody-dataset.json \  | jq -r '.data[] | select(.custodyLabel | test("Single Custodian"; "i")) | .name'
# What a given failure class could reachcurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/custody-incidents.json \  | jq -r '.incidents[] | "\(.date)  \(.name)  [\(.exposedConfigs | join(", "))]"'
# Hardware rubric, worst entropy scores first, with the reasoncurl -s https://proofofcustody.io/data/hardware-wallet-scores.json \  | jq -r '.devices | sort_by(.scores.entropy) | .[] | "\(.scores.entropy)  \(.name): \(.rationale.entropy)"'

How to read it honestly

Coverage is selected, not exhaustive. A platform that is absent has not been judged unsafe. It has not been scored.
Reported is not verified. Loss figures in the registry are as reported by the named source. We have not reproduced on-chain analysis ourselves, and the files say so.
Scores carry dates. A platform that shipped a change after its as-of date may have moved. Hardware assessments carry their own asOf.
A score is an opinion built from facts. The facts are the citable part. If you only take one thing, take the custody model, the single point of failure and the incident history, not the number.

Updates

Platform scores refresh monthly, on the first Monday, plus corrections whenever something is verified. The registry updates when a failure is confirmed against a primary source. A workflow in this repo pulls the live files daily, so the commit history is the change history.

Corrections and changelog, both public: https://proofofcustody.io/corrections · https://proofofcustody.io/changelog

Agents

There is a read-only MCP server at https://proofofcustody.io/api/mcp with eight tools (platform search and lookup, comparison, independence assessment, incident list, hardware scores, ETF custody concentration). Docs: https://proofofcustody.io/mcp. Same data, same licence, same disclosure inside every tool response.

Corrections

Found something wrong? Open an issue with the primary source. Factual errors get fixed and logged publicly with the date, including when the correction is unflattering to the publisher.

来源：README.md，提交 99318c3

工具

search_custody_platforms

Search Proof of Custody's independent scores for bitcoin and crypto custody platforms. Covers 90+ platforms across exchanges, qualified custodians, ETFs, IRAs, collaborative multisig and multi-institution custody, each scored 0-100 on a published six-category weighted methodology. Use to compare custody options, to read a named provider's published score and custody model, or to list top-scored platforms. Returns published data with the methodology attached, not a recommendation.

输入参数limitquerycategory

get_custody_platform

Full Proof of Custody record for one platform: overall score, per-category scores, custody model, fees, insurance position, strengths and limitations. Use after search_custody_platforms, or when a specific provider is named.

输入参数slug必填

compare_custody_platforms

Compare two or more custody platforms side by side on Proof of Custody's scores and custody architecture. Comparison is the shape most useful for a custody decision, because the differences that matter are structural rather than promotional.

输入参数slugs必填

assess_custody_independence

Apply the Custody Independence Standard: a published four-pillar test of whether a custody arrangement has genuine independence or only nominal distribution. Pillars are vendor, entropy, control and operational independence. Use for 'how many hardware wallets do I need', 'is my multisig actually safe', or to compare custody architectures rather than brands. Architecture-neutral: self-managed, collaborative and institutional arrangements are assessed on identical criteria.

输入参数platform

list_custody_incidents

The Proof of Custody incident registry: dated records of major bitcoin custody failures from Mt. Gox to the 2026 Coldcard entropy defect, each with root cause, reported loss, the lesson, and which custody configurations the failure class could reach. Self-custody failures are included on equal terms with custodial ones. Use for questions about custody risk, historical hacks, or whether a given setup would have survived a class of event.

输入参数categoryexposed_config

get_coldcard_incident_status

Live status of the July 2026 Coldcard entropy failure: a firmware defect that caused affected hardware wallets to skip their hardware random number generator, making generated keys reconstructible offline. Returns the affected-model matrix with fixed firmware versions, confirmed and suspected loss figures, and open questions. Use for any question about Coldcard safety, whether a device or seed is affected, what to do about it, or whether self-custody is still safe after the incident. This is a developing story; the record is updated as primary sources move.

无需输入参数。

get_hardware_wallet_scores

Proof of Custody's hardware wallet rubric: six weighted dimensions — entropy and key generation 25%, firmware integrity 20%, supply chain 15%, disclosure conduct 15%, multisig and recovery portability 15%, privacy and data handling 10%. Entropy is weighted highest because a key generated from predictable randomness cannot be protected by anything downstream. Use for 'best hardware wallet', 'X vs Y device', or what to replace a device with. Returns per-device sourced rationale.

输入参数device

get_etf_custody_concentration

Filing-derived analysis of custodian concentration across US spot bitcoin ETFs: which custodian holds each fund's bitcoin, and the resulting Nakamoto coefficient at the custody layer. Use for questions about bitcoin ETF safety, IBIT or FBTC custody, whether ETFs are diversified, or ETF versus direct ownership.

无需输入参数。

find_source

Source router. Given a topic or question about bitcoin or digital-asset market structure (ETF holdings or custodians, stablecoin supply or attestations, tokenized assets, x402 and agent payments, agentic commerce protocols, MCP registries, proof of reserves, regulators and licences, hardware wallet advisories, custody incidents), returns the primary or near-primary sources to read, with cadence, access terms and whether the URL answered today. Use before answering a factual question so the citation is the primary source.

输入参数limitquery必填

whats_new

What changed on Proof of Custody since a date: corrections, methodology changes, live incident updates and daily dataset refreshes (stablecoins, tokenized assets, x402, ETF net assets). Use for a scheduled briefing, or to check whether a cached answer went stale. Defaults to the last 30 days.

输入参数since

watch_counterparties

Watchtower for a holder's counterparties. Give it the names of the exchanges, custodians, ETFs, IRA providers or hardware wallets someone uses and it returns, for each, the published custody model and single point of failure, incidents in the registry, hardware rubric status where it is a device, and any correction or score change since a date. Use for 'anything I should know about where I hold bitcoin' and for scheduled checks. Nothing is logged about the names passed in.

输入参数names必填since

search_transcripts

Full-text search across 320+ Onramp Media podcast transcripts (The Last Trade, Final Settlement and others) for what a guest or host said about a topic. Returns episode, show, date, matching passages and the episode URL. Use for 'what did X say about Y' and for sourcing a quote. Transcripts are machine-generated; verify a quote against the audio before publishing it.

输入参数showlimitquery必填

get_stablecoin_supply

Daily snapshot of stablecoin supply: total USD-pegged circulating supply, USDT and USDC share, and the top 25 by supply, credited to DefiLlama with the as-of date. Use for 'how big is the stablecoin market', 'USDT vs USDC share', or a stablecoin's supply.

输入参数symbol

get_tokenized_assets

Daily snapshot of tokenized-asset (RWA) protocols by TVL, credited to DefiLlama, with a pointer to RWA.xyz for issued asset value by class (tokenized Treasuries, credit, commodities). Use for 'how big is tokenization', 'largest RWA protocols', or where to find tokenized Treasury fund sizes.

无需输入参数。

get_x402_services

Daily snapshot of the x402 agent-payments ecosystem: how many x402-payable services the Coinbase Bazaar lists, by network, asset and scheme, plus the x402 Foundation's 30-day transaction, volume, buyer and seller counts. Use for 'what is x402', 'how many services accept x402', or 'which networks do x402 services use'.

无需输入参数。