Bitget Wallet, a self-custodial platform serving over 100 million users globally, has joined the Blockchain Collaborative Consortium (BCCC), Japan's largest blockchain industry association, as the country enters a new phase of digital asset regulation. The move marks the first time the wallet platform has formally participated in Japan's industry policy discussions, arriving at a critical moment when regulators and market participants are increasingly examining how services that let users directly control their own assets should be treated under law.

What Is Changing in Japan's Crypto Custody Rules?

Japan introduced new regulations covering cryptocurrency service intermediaries that took effect in June 2026, bringing renewed attention to a fundamental distinction in the crypto ecosystem: the difference between custodial platforms, which hold assets on users' behalf, and self-custodial platforms, where users retain control of their private keys. This regulatory clarity is significant because it formally acknowledges that not all crypto services operate the same way, and different rules may apply depending on who controls the underlying assets.

The BCCC, established in 2016, is Japan's first blockchain industry association and brings together more than 270 companies and organizations across the country's blockchain ecosystem. Through its theme-specific committees covering technology, financial services, decentralized finance (DeFi), and stablecoins, the consortium provides a forum for industry participants to develop use cases, discuss regulatory issues, and engage directly with policymakers.

"Japan is one of the few markets where technology development and regulatory clarity are advancing in parallel. As self-custody becomes part of the formal policy discussion, the industry needs standards that protect users without losing sight of how these products actually work," said Alvin Kan, Chief Operating Officer of Bitget Wallet.

Alvin Kan, Chief Operating Officer at Bitget Wallet

Why Does Institutional Custody Matter Alongside Self-Custody?

While Bitget Wallet represents the self-custody side of the equation, the broader crypto custody landscape includes institutional players managing digital assets for banks, investment firms, and other financial institutions. Understanding both models provides context for why Japan's regulatory framework matters.

Institutional crypto custody involves far more than choosing a wallet or exchange. It is a comprehensive system of technologies and procedures that financial institutions must implement to segregate access to assets, control transactions, maintain records, keep client funds separate, and comply with regulatory requirements. According to data from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, cryptoassets held in custody by the world's largest banks reached approximately 23 billion dollars by mid-2024, demonstrating the scale of institutional adoption.

Financial institutions typically choose from three main custody models when deciding how to manage digital assets:

• Self-Custody Model: The financial institution manages the cryptographic keys and infrastructure used to access digital assets, sets security policies, transaction procedures, and employee permissions. This approach gives the institution full control but also requires it to assume all associated custody risks, including protection of cryptographic keys, access backup and recovery, segregation of employee permissions, transaction controls and approvals, protection of infrastructure against cyberattacks, and uninterrupted system operation.
• Third-Party Custody Model: The financial institution outsources custody to a specialized provider, using the custodian's existing infrastructure and delegating functions related to key security and transaction processing. When selecting a custodian, institutions must evaluate reliability and financial stability, key protection technologies, procedures for granting and restricting access, disaster recovery procedures, allocation of responsibilities between parties, and regulatory compliance.
• Hybrid Model: The financial institution retains control over key processes while outsourcing some technology or operational functions to a third-party provider. For example, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) launched a crypto service for retail clients in Spain in 2025, with fintech company Ripple providing the technology infrastructure for digital asset custody while BBVA retained control over private keys and their use.

How Do Institutions Protect Crypto Assets Across Different Storage Tiers?

Regardless of which custody model an institution chooses, it must determine how to structure access to assets based on availability and infrastructure isolation. Financial institutions typically use three storage tiers simultaneously, keeping funds needed for ongoing operations in more accessible environments while isolating remaining assets to reduce exposure to potential attacks.

• Hot Storage: The infrastructure used to process transactions is connected to the network continuously or regularly, making assets available almost immediately. This tier is suitable for client settlements, transfers, trading, and liquidity management, but because it is more exposed to external attacks, the amount of funds held in hot storage is typically limited.
• Warm Storage: This is an intermediate tier where access to assets is restricted by additional procedures, but the infrastructure is not fully isolated from the network. These funds are not used for daily operations but can be accessed when needed.
• Cold Storage: The keys or infrastructure used to sign transactions are isolated from the network. This reduces the risk of remote attacks but makes access to assets more complex and time-consuming, making cold storage suitable for funds that are not needed for ongoing operations.

Security depends not only on the custody tier but also on how keys are protected and the rules governing transactions. Financial institutions use several technologies and control mechanisms to protect cryptographic keys and determine who can control assets and under what conditions. Hardware security modules (HSMs) generate, store, and use cryptographic keys in a secure environment and can perform signing operations, restrict access, and log actions involving keys. Multisignature distributes control over assets across multiple keys, requiring multiple signatures for a transaction; for example, a 2-of-3 scheme allows a transaction to be executed only when 2 of 3 signatures are provided. Multi-party computation (MPC) distributes the signature generation process across multiple participants or devices without requiring the full private key to be stored in a single location.

Technology safeguards are supplemented by transaction rules that determine who can initiate and approve transactions, what amounts are permitted, which addresses funds can be sent to, when additional approval is required, and under what conditions a transaction must be blocked.

What Regulatory Requirements Apply to Crypto Custody?

Technical safeguards alone are not sufficient for institutional digital asset custody. Financial institutions also need to comply with regulatory requirements and be able to determine at any time where assets are held, who owns them, and who is authorized to control them. Specific rules vary by jurisdiction, but the main requirements include protection of cryptographic keys and access controls, recordkeeping for each client's assets, reconciliation of internal records with actual asset holdings, segregation of client funds from the institution's own funds, protection of client assets in the event of insolvency, and access recovery and business continuity.

The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) requires client cryptoassets to be segregated from the service provider's own assets and a register of each client's positions to be maintained. If the provider becomes insolvent, client assets must be protected from claims by its creditors. Custody providers must also have policies and procedures in place to safeguard assets and the means of access to them.

Bitget Wallet's participation in the BCCC signals that as Japan refines its regulatory framework, the industry is working to develop standards that protect users while remaining practical for wallet providers and other service operators. The platform plans to contribute operational experience from supporting users across global markets and integrations with more than 130 blockchains, while participating in discussions around wallet standards, DeFi regulation, and consumer understanding of self-custody. This collaborative approach between industry participants and regulators reflects a broader trend toward formal governance structures for crypto services that prioritize both innovation and consumer protection.