Digital-Asset Custody Trust Adviser — Institutional Wealth

The mandate

The board remains divided over whether a proposed custody service truly segregates client assets and survives key loss, insider collusion or provider failure. Technical demonstrations show signing workflows but not the legal, operational and recovery trust boundaries that institutional clients will rely upon. Its unresolved question is who reconstructs client ownership and regains authorised control when a quorum member, cloud region and subcustodian become unavailable together.

The adviser reserves four days monthly, works remotely, attends quarterly Zurich sessions and joins scheduled Geneva and London provider reviews. One day each month is protected for confidential chair counsel and pre-reading of custody design or exception papers. Material board questions receive acknowledgement within one business day and a reasoned view within three, with assumptions and matters requiring Swiss legal opinion separated explicitly.

The ten-month term may renew once for three months through a recorded committee decision after launch assurance. That review will test whether advice changed decisions, conflicts remain manageable and management can operate the challenge process unaided. Delayed product delivery, vendor negotiation or an incomplete feature backlog does not itself justify renewal.

The appointment carries no line authority, custody approval, key access or executive responsibility. Management selects architecture and providers; regulated officers retain client-asset, disclosure and service decisions. The adviser may recommend withholding launch or a transaction class, but cannot join signing quorums, direct responders or represent the service to clients or supervisors.

Conflicts include digital-asset custodians, wallet vendors, exchanges, insurers, auditors and competing wealth boards. Relevant work, holdings and referral economics require disclosure before data-room access and throughout the term. A new role involving any shortlisted provider, token issuer or material institutional client requires written chair clearance.

Why the board wants this voice

Current directors understand wealth risk but have not governed cryptographic custody failure. Product and security teams frame trust differently. Independent counsel can expose where technical ceremony, legal title and operational recovery diverge.

What you will own

• Challenge the end-to-end trust model across onboarding, key creation, transaction policy, signing, settlement, reconciliation, statement production and recovery.
• Test asset segregation claims against client agreements, books and records, wallet topology, insolvency treatment and daily operational evidence.
• Press management on quorum design, privileged insiders, geographic concentration and coercion scenarios.
• Review provider dependencies for subcustody, cloud, transaction policy, chain analytics and disaster recovery.
• Shape board acceptance gates for key ceremonies, recovery exercises and client-asset reconciliation.
• Examine incident decisions for forks, compromised keys, sanctions alerts and irreversible transfers.
• Equip the committee with residual-risk, concentration, reconciliation-break and service-suspension indicators grounded in observable custody events.

Candidate qualifications

• Governed institutional digital-asset custody, cryptographic key management or equivalent high-value signing infrastructure with direct risk-committee exposure.
• Can evidence a board decision shaped by wallet, MPC, HSM or key-recovery failure analysis.
• Connected legal asset segregation to technical wallet, subledger, omnibus-account and client-statement controls across normal and insolvency scenarios.
• Observed or designed recovery ceremonies involving independent quorum participants and auditable evidence.
• Challenged custody providers on insolvency, subcontracting and operational concentration.
• Maintained independence from vendors while counselling regulated financial-services directors on launch, suspension and recovery decisions.

Non-negotiables

• Can fulfil remote response and all Zurich, Geneva and London sessions.
• Will disclose custody, exchange, vendor, insurer and investment conflicts.
• Accepts no key access, service approval or operational authority.
• Has board-level custody trust experience beyond cryptocurrency policy commentary.

1. 49 words maximum. Which present relationship could conflict with this custody review?
2. 49 words maximum. Describe a recovery ceremony whose evidence changed a board decision.
3. 49 words maximum. What would disprove an apparently strong client-asset segregation claim?