Solutions · Compliance

Ready for regulatory scrutiny?

Regulators are catching up with institutional custody. Sentinel benchmarks the arrangement against MiCA, SEC guidance and jurisdiction-specific frameworks, checks the policy behind it, and gives you a document an auditor can read before they ask.

  • MiCA and national frameworks
  • Jurisdiction fit
  • Audit trail
  • Written policy
Check my compliance posture7 questions. No account. Nothing leaves your browser.
SENTINELCustody Policy Brief
Verified · PASS · sample
Prepared for
[Entity], compliance file
Prepared by
[Advisor], BCGA Associate
Arrangement
2-of-3, EU (MiCA) jurisdiction
Verified
Sample · September 2026
§2 · Regulatory posture
page 3 of 9sha256 · 9f3c…a71e

Verify it yourself

Don't take the brief's word for it.

The verdict on a policy is not an opinion. It comes from a proof engine that can be run on the same policy again and will say the same thing. Running it yourself is what the note below is holding a place for.

ENGINE · GUARANTEESdeterministic · no external calls
  1. 1The verdict is produced by a deterministic proof engine: the same policy gives the same result every time.
  2. 2Verifying a policy is a computation, not a call to a model or a service; the engine has no network dependency of its own.
  3. 3It contains no model, no temperature and no judgement call; nothing above it can overrule it.
Same input, same verdict. Run it again in ten years.Verify it yourself: available after publication

What goes wrong

Three ways an arrangement fails an audit it would have passed.

  • The arrangement is lawful nowhere in particular.

    Keys in one country, the holder in another, the entity in a third. Until someone writes down which framework applies, every regulator's answer is "not ours".

    Q3 · Local regulatory posture

  • Nobody can show the auditor what the policy is.

    The arrangement works, and nobody can produce the document that says how. A verbal policy is not evidence; a dated, verified one is.

    Q5 · Last security audit

  • The custody method has outgrown its paperwork.

    An exchange account became a hardware wallet became a multi-sig, and the file still describes the first. The auditor reads the file.

    Q1 · Current custody method

What Sentinel checks for this

7 questions, weighted for compliance.

The same assessment serves every concern. For compliance, the jurisdiction question carries the most weight in the score, and the brief that follows is written around it.

The result is a governance score across five pillars and a written brief. It is not legal advice, and it does not replace the lawyer who will reference it.

  1. Q3Local regulatory postureCompliance · ×1
  2. Q1Current custody methodTechnical · ×1
  3. Q2Total asset value range (USD equivalent)Operational · ×1
  4. Q4Succession plan in place?Policy · ×1
  5. Q5Last security auditOperational · ×1
  6. Q6Backup & recovery material storageOperational · ×1
  7. Q7Holder identity exposure & physical recovery posturePhysical · ×1

Pillars and weights from the assessment template v1.1.0. The questions in bold are the ones this concern weighs first.

What Sentinel does not do

It is not your regulator.

Sentinel is non-custodial by design and is not a licensed service provider. It reads a policy and scores the arrangement against published frameworks; the document it produces is yours to give to your counsel, your auditor, or nobody.

Begin with the assessment. Everything else follows from it.

Check my compliance postureFree, no account. The score and the written policy are free; the PDF brief is Sentinel Pro.

Sample brief and verdict are synthetic and labelled as such. Questions from the assessment template v1.1.0. Custody Agents S.L., Barcelona.

Custody Agents S.L.