Comparison

Why Multisig?

See how Trustodian's onchain multisig vaults compare to MPC wallets and hardware wallets.

	Trustodian Multisig	MPC	Hardware Wallets
Pricing	Free/Subscription + Network fees	Subscription + usage costs + AUM fees	Device cost + Network fees
Security	Onchain, transparent N-of-M signing	Offchain MPC signing	Offline key storage; single-signer risk
Transparency	Fully onchain	Limited	Limited
Flexibility	Modular, programmable API	Policy engine	Limited automation
Vendor Lock-In	Fully portable accounts	Full Vendor Lock-in	Fully portable accounts
Asset Forfeiture	No	Yes	No
Self-Custody Capability	Yes	Architecture dependent	Yes
If Provider Disappears	Seed/device allows recovery	Architecture determines recoverability	Seed/device allows recovery
Single Point of Failure	Low when signers/devices are properly distributed	Reduced cryptographically, but platform/provider dependency may remain	Potentially high if one device/seed controls wallet

Trustodian Multisig

Pricing

Free/Subscription + Network fees

Security

Onchain, transparent N-of-M signing

Transparency

Fully onchain

Flexibility

Modular, programmable API

Vendor Lock-In

Fully portable accounts

Asset Forfeiture

Self-Custody Capability

Yes

If Provider Disappears

Seed/device allows recovery

Single Point of Failure

Low when signers/devices are properly distributed

MPC

Pricing

Subscription + usage costs + AUM fees

Security

Offchain MPC signing

Transparency

Limited

Flexibility

Policy engine

Vendor Lock-In

Full Vendor Lock-in

Asset Forfeiture

Yes

Self-Custody Capability

Architecture dependent

If Provider Disappears

Architecture determines recoverability

Single Point of Failure

Reduced cryptographically, but platform/provider dependency may remain

Hardware Wallets

Pricing

Device cost + Network fees

Security

Offline key storage; single-signer risk

Transparency

Limited

Flexibility

Limited automation

Vendor Lock-In

Fully portable accounts

Asset Forfeiture

Self-Custody Capability

Yes

If Provider Disappears

Seed/device allows recovery

Single Point of Failure

Potentially high if one device/seed controls wallet

Detailed Comparison

Feature-by-feature breakdown

A closer look at how the three custody approaches differ across cost, security, chain support, and operational trade-offs.

	Multisig (smart contract)	MPC	Hardware Wallet (single-sig)
Cost	Free or subscription; contract deployment + higher per-tx gas	Subscription, usage, or AUM fees (institutional); free tiers exist for consumer	Device cost + standard network fees
Signing model	N-of-M enforced onchain by contract	N-of-M enforced offchain via distributed key shares	Single key, offline storage
Master private key	Never exists, by construction: N independent keys, no reconstructible master secret	Exists mathematically; never assembled in normal operation, but reconstructible when enough shares combine (export, recovery, collusion, or compromise)	Exists in full at all times, on device and as seed backup
Transparency	Fully onchain: signers, threshold, and policy are public	Offchain: policy is private but not independently verifiable	Standard transactions; nothing to inspect
Privacy	Low: setup and signer changes are visible	High: transactions look like ordinary single-sig	High: indistinguishable from any wallet
Chain support	Only chains with compatible smart contracts	Any chain using standard signature schemes (incl. Bitcoin)	Broad, depends on device firmware
Smart contract risk	Yes: contract bugs can freeze or expose funds	No	No
Flexibility / automation	Highly programmable (modules, spending policies, recovery)	Policy engine, provider dependent	Limited; mostly manual signing
Vendor lock-in	Low: contract lives onchain, portable across interfaces	Varies: exportable (developer platforms), independently recoverable (good institutional), or contractually dependent	Low: standard seed phrase, portable
Provider can freeze / seize funds	No	Depends: yes if custodial, no if user holds a required share	No
Self-custody	Yes	Depends on architecture	Yes
If provider disappears	Funds recoverable via any compatible interface	Depends: recoverable via share-based reconstruction, but recovery assembles the full key; wallet should be swept and retired afterward	Fully recoverable via seed
Signer replacement / recovery	Routine onchain transaction; swap a lost signer, wallet address unchanged, no secret assembled	Share refresh possible in normal operation; full loss scenarios require key reconstruction (one-time exposure event)	No replacement possible; seed compromise means the wallet is burned
Single point of failure	Low with distributed signers; contract itself is a shared dependency	Low cryptographically; provider infrastructure may be a dependency	High: one seed or device controls everything
Gas efficiency	Lower: multisig txs cost more	High: normal single-sig transactions	High: normal transactions

Multisig (smart contract)

Cost

Free or subscription; contract deployment + higher per-tx gas

Signing model

N-of-M enforced onchain by contract

Master private key

Never exists, by construction: N independent keys, no reconstructible master secret

Transparency

Fully onchain: signers, threshold, and policy are public

Privacy

Low: setup and signer changes are visible

Chain support

Only chains with compatible smart contracts

Smart contract risk

Yes: contract bugs can freeze or expose funds

Flexibility / automation

Highly programmable (modules, spending policies, recovery)

Vendor lock-in

Low: contract lives onchain, portable across interfaces

Provider can freeze / seize funds

Self-custody

Yes

If provider disappears

Funds recoverable via any compatible interface

Signer replacement / recovery

Routine onchain transaction; swap a lost signer, wallet address unchanged, no secret assembled

Single point of failure

Low with distributed signers; contract itself is a shared dependency

Gas efficiency

Lower: multisig txs cost more

MPC

Cost

Subscription, usage, or AUM fees (institutional); free tiers exist for consumer

Signing model

N-of-M enforced offchain via distributed key shares

Master private key

Exists mathematically; never assembled in normal operation, but reconstructible when enough shares combine (export, recovery, collusion, or compromise)

Transparency

Offchain: policy is private but not independently verifiable

Privacy

High: transactions look like ordinary single-sig

Chain support

Any chain using standard signature schemes (incl. Bitcoin)

Smart contract risk

Flexibility / automation

Policy engine, provider dependent

Vendor lock-in

Varies: exportable (developer platforms), independently recoverable (good institutional), or contractually dependent

Provider can freeze / seize funds

Depends: yes if custodial, no if user holds a required share

Self-custody

Depends on architecture

If provider disappears

Depends: recoverable via share-based reconstruction, but recovery assembles the full key; wallet should be swept and retired afterward

Signer replacement / recovery

Share refresh possible in normal operation; full loss scenarios require key reconstruction (one-time exposure event)

Single point of failure

Low cryptographically; provider infrastructure may be a dependency

Gas efficiency

High: normal single-sig transactions

Hardware Wallet (single-sig)

Cost

Device cost + standard network fees

Signing model

Single key, offline storage

Master private key

Exists in full at all times, on device and as seed backup

Transparency

Standard transactions; nothing to inspect

Privacy

High: indistinguishable from any wallet

Chain support

Broad, depends on device firmware

Smart contract risk

Flexibility / automation

Limited; mostly manual signing

Vendor lock-in

Low: standard seed phrase, portable

Provider can freeze / seize funds

Self-custody

Yes

If provider disappears

Fully recoverable via seed

Signer replacement / recovery

No replacement possible; seed compromise means the wallet is burned

Single point of failure

High: one seed or device controls everything

Gas efficiency

High: normal transactions