When custody is held by a platform: what to do first
When a platform holds custody of your tokenised rights, you do not own the tokens directly — you hold a claim against the platform. If access is delayed, frozen, or the platform fails, first establish which entity holds custody and whether it is authorised under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA).
The legal basis
Custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients is a regulated activity under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). A platform performing this activity needs authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider, and must keep client assets separate from its own. Where custody involves moving tokens between wallets or across platforms, Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR) governs the information that must travel with the transfer.
What changes in practice
Once a platform holds custody, your position depends on that platform's licensing status, its segregation practice, and its jurisdiction. A platform operating across several EU member states raises a related question — When the offer targets several countries in practice — because each link in the custody chain needs checking separately. Delay in verifying custody status extends every later step, including any claim for return of assets.
What to do first
- Identify the custodian. Write down the legal name and registration details of the entity that actually holds the tokens, not just the platform brand shown on screen.
- Check the authorisation. Confirm whether that entity is authorised under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) to provide custody and administration services.
- Stop relying on the app balance. Treat the figure on screen as unconfirmed until the custody chain is verified in writing.
- Request a written statement. Ask the platform, in writing, to confirm the segregation of your assets from its own balance sheet.
- Preserve records. Save transaction history, terms of service, and any communication about the freeze or delay, dated and complete.
- Instruct counsel before a deadline runs. If the platform is insolvent or unresponsive, have counsel assess standing to claim before any statutory window closes.
Who decides, and on what evidence
Two different bodies matter here, and they answer different questions. A supervisory authority for crypto-asset markets checks whether the platform is authorised and whether it has met its custody obligations. A civil court, or an insolvency administrator if the platform has failed, decides who owns which assets and in what order claims are paid.
| Situation | Who decides | What evidence matters |
|---|---|---|
| Platform operating, access delayed | Supervisory authority for crypto-asset markets | Authorisation status, segregation policy, correspondence |
| Platform insolvent | Insolvency administrator, then court | Wallet records, custody agreement, transfer history |
| Dispute over ownership of specific tokens | Civil court | On-chain records, custody agreement, TFR-compliant transfer data |
Two scenarios
If the platform is still operating and simply slow, your priority is a written custody confirmation and a deadline for its answer, not litigation.
If the platform has entered insolvency proceedings, your priority shifts to filing a claim within the process the administrator has opened, before any bar date.
If the tokens moved across borders before the freeze, the transfer itself falls under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), and its records may be the only proof of where the assets went.
What this page does not solve
This page does not establish what can be recovered from a specific asset once enforcement starts. That question is answered on Asset in Austria and its limits, where the scope of one national asset check is set out.
It does not walk through the mechanics of enforcement against a debtor who holds tokens through a platform. That sequence is covered separately: Debtor report before starting enforcement: what to do first.
Nor does it explain which report tier fits a custody dispute of this kind. That comparison is set out in Three tiers, and the question each of them answers.
Verified
Checked on 10 March 2025. Sources: Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), consolidated text, EUR-Lex; Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR), consolidated text, EUR-Lex.
Related
A related situation concerns contract terms rather than custody: When the contract has no upgrade path: what to sets out what to do first when the limitation sits in the agreement itself.
FAQ
What is the first step when custody is held by a platform?
Identify the entity that actually holds the tokens and confirm, in writing, whether it is authorised under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) for custody and administration services.
Which deadline is already running?
If the platform has entered insolvency proceedings, a claim-filing deadline set by that process is usually already running. Confirm the bar date with the administrator before doing anything else.
Who decides, and on what evidence?
A supervisory authority reviews the platform's authorisation and segregation practice. A court or insolvency administrator decides ownership and payment order, based on custody agreements, wallet records, and transfer data under Regulation (EU) 2023/1113 (TFR).