Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
✳️ dcposch on daimo
@dcposch.eth
What counts as self-custody? I've seen orgs ship what's effectively a 2-of-3 multisig or MPC where they keep 2 of the 3 shares. While arguing that this is still noncustodial for legal purposes! This allows nice UX like phone or email recovery. No judgement, just curiosity: does that work?
8 replies
2 recasts
112 reactions
grin
@grin
Every time I hear privy call itself noncustodial it makes me wince And I think privy is great. just lets be honest, y’know
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Samuel ツ
@samuellhuber.eth
wait 2/3 multisig and provider has 2 means I have no control? self means nothing lol as I can't just interact with the multisig to do something without the provider
0 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
will
@w
not a lawyer but i can't imagine that it does
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
e22
@e22
No.. just… no.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Matt Schoch
@md5
For sure. Typically 2/3 mpc will require the user share, so the provider cannot initiate, only co-sign. Non-custodial means provider does not custody; not necessarily that the user holds the keys.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ɃΞrn
@b7
Are the shares / signers all transactional? MiCa kind of defines custodianship by the ability of moving assets.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
trevor
@trevoranon
it only counts as self custody if signatures require the user if there is any ways for signatures to be signed without the user’s input then it’s custodial this includes systems that rely on secure hardware (sharing the hsm flips malicious) and auth (who controls the auth server?) 2-2 or bust
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
eggman 🔵
@eggman.eth
Honestly, I'd say it's non-custodial if you only have 1 of 3 keys. Your balance can essentially be zero'd or frozen at any given time. I think the larger part of the argument comes to loss prevention/recovery. If the single user can approve a drainer, can they argue the "noncustodial" side should've prevented that?
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
