Proof Of Custody

io.github.onrampbtc由 GitHub 帳號 onrampbtc 發布v1.1.0更新於 Oct 27, 2026

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

發布方自己的服務：Proof Holdings

已驗證Streamable HTTP可網頁執行金融知識與記憶資料與分析

服務詳細資訊

識別碼: io.github.onrampbtc/proof-of-custody
傳輸: Streamable HTTP
執行環境: Web executable
信任: Verified
發布於: Oct 20, 2026

安全提示

MCP 服務會接收對話中的工具呼叫請求，並可能執行外部操作。啟用前請先了解該服務能做什麼，並只授予它所需的權限。

註冊中心已驗證此條目所屬的 GitHub 帳號 onrampbtc。這並不表明該帳號就是產品方。

SourceWeft 的檢查只涵蓋條目是否完整、端點是否回應；不審查伺服器的程式碼，也不審查其工具的行為。

在 README 中新增徽章

向讀者展示該 MCP 服務已收錄於 SourceWeft，徽章連結到本頁。

[![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)

概覽

AI 產生的概覽

唯讀遠端 MCP 伺服器，提供 Proof of Custody 的比特幣與加密資產託管評分、事故登錄、ETF 託管資料及市場快照。

可以做什麼: 搜尋並查詢託管平台評分，含各分項分數、託管模式、費用、保險與單點故障
並排比較多個平台，並依四支柱標準評估託管安排的獨立性
列出託管事故紀錄，查詢 Coldcard 熵缺陷的即時狀態
取得硬體錢包評分細則與 ETF 保管機構集中度分析
抓取穩定幣供給量、代幣化資產與 x402 代理支付服務的每日快照
依主題導向來源、查看近期變更、監控持有人的交易對手，並全文檢索播客逐字稿
適用情境: 適合回答比特幣託管方案選擇、自託管與多簽設計、硬體錢包風險、ETF 保管機構集中度，以及穩定幣與代幣化資產市場規模等問題，尤其當需要可引用、附日期的資料集而非模型一般知識時。
執行需求: 遠端 streamable HTTP 端點；未宣告任何套件、API 金鑰或環境變數。需要能連線至該服務商的端點。

安裝前請注意

屬唯讀資料服務，但資料集由 Onramp Bitcoin 發布，而該公司本身也是被評分的平台之一；收錄範圍為選擇性而非全量，損失數字為具名來源的報導值，評分附有截止日期。用於財務決策前應核實最新事實。

安裝

在 SourceWeft 中

開啟儀表板中的 Proof Of Custody，將其新增到工作區。
為需要使用其工具的對話啟用該服務。

Web executable，透過 Streamable HTTP。遠端服務在工作區中設定後即可從網頁執行環境執行。

交給代理程式安裝

把這段提示詞貼上到 Claude Code、Codex、Cursor 等代理程式，或 SourceWeft 對話中。代理程式會讀取該伺服器的安裝指南，先向你展示發布者、端點和登入方式，經你同意後再把它新增到你的客戶端。金鑰不會寫進任何命令。

閱讀 https://sourceweft.com/mcp/io.github.onrampbtc%2Fproof-of-custody/install.md，並按其中說明把這個 MCP 伺服器接入我的客戶端。修改任何設定之前，先告訴我它的發布者、端點和登入方式，等我確認。不要把 API 金鑰寫進命令或我會提交的檔案；問我金鑰應從哪裡取得。

檢視代理程式所依據的安裝指南

其他 MCP 客戶端

把它新增到你客戶端的 mcpServers 設定中。

{
  "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.

來源：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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

無需輸入參數。

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.

輸入參數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.

無需輸入參數。

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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

輸入參數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.

無需輸入參數。

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'.

無需輸入參數。