How Crypto Industry Is Rewriting Rules of Custody, Identity, and Defense in an Era of Automated Threats.

For the better part of a decade, the ethos of cryptocurrency security was distilled into a single, terrifyingly simple mantra: “Not your keys, not your coins.” It was a call to arms for self-sovereignty, placing the burden of bank-grade security onto the shoulders of individuals. But as we move deeper into 2025 and beyond, that narrative is fracturing.

The lone wolf guarding a piece of paper with 24 words on it is no longer the definitive image of crypto security.

Today, the industry is grappling with a much more complex reality. We are entering an era where Artificial Intelligence drafts phishing emails indistinguishable from reality, where institutional money demands custody solutions that are both liquid and impregnable, and where our on-chain identities are becoming as valuable as the assets they hold.

To understand this shift, we spoke with a diverse panel of industry leaders who are building the walls of this new digital fortress: Arthur Firstov, CBO of Mercuryo; Federico Variola, CEO of Phemex; Vivien Lin, Chief Product Officer and Head of BingX Labs; Lucien Bourdon, Bitcoin Analyst at Trezor; Vugar Usi Zade, Chief Operations Officer (COO) of Bitget and Bernie Blume, Founder and CEO of Xandeum Labs.

Together, their insights paint a picture of a financial ecosystem that is moving away from static defenses toward a dynamic, tiered, and intelligent architecture of trust.

The Human Element: The Unchanging Weak Point

Despite the arrival of Account Abstraction (ERC-4337) and biometric authentication, the root of most security breaches remains stubbornly human. The mechanism of the “seed phrase,” the master key to one’s digital wealth, is both a feature and a bug. It offers total control, but it demands total perfection from the user.

The threat landscape, however, has evolved. We are no longer just dealing with Nigerian princes sending poorly spelled emails. We are facing AI-enhanced social engineering.

Lucien Bourdon, a Bitcoin Analyst at hardware wallet pioneer Trezor, argues that while the tools of the attackers have become more sophisticated, the defense strategy must remain radically simple. The complexity of AI-driven attacks often distracts users from the fundamental rule of cold storage.

“Education is the most important defense,” Bourdon asserts, adding:

“These scams come in every form, so rather than chasing specific attacks, we focus on the core principle: never enter your seed words on any connected device. Not a phone, not a computer, even if the app looks legitimate.”

This highlights a critical tension in the market. While developers race to build “smart” wallets that can recover lost keys via social guardians, the hardware sector doubles down on isolation.

Bourdon notes that Trezor invests heavily in education to demystify the seed phrase, but the premise is clear: in a world where AI can fake a video call from your CEO or a support message from your exchange, the only safe data is data that never touches the internet.

The AI Arms Race: Defense at the Exchange Level

If the individual user is the first line of defense, the exchange is the fortress. But exchanges today are not just guarding against hackers trying to breach the vault; they are guarding against market manipulators and automated syndicates.

Vivien Lin, CPO at BingX, views AI as a double-edged sword that exchanges must wield responsibly. The integration of AI into finance isn’t just about trading bots; it’s about a careful balance and thoughtful integration.

“AI allows exchanges to identify patterns, monitor unusual trading behavior, and detect vulnerabilities before they turn into real threats. At BingX, we look at AI not as a shield but as an early-warning system that helps us stay proactive.”— Vivien Lin, CPO at BingX

This “early-warning” capability is crucial in a 24/7 market. Human security teams cannot monitor millions of transactions per second for subtle anomalies that precede an exploit. However, the introduction of AI into the security stack raises questions about trust. If an algorithm freezes your funds because it “predicts” a threat, is that security or overreach?

Lin emphasizes that the solution lies in the balance between automation and human oversight. “Automation brings speed and precision, but trust still comes from transparency,” she says. “Users should understand how AI is being used… AI should enhance confidence, not create dependency.”

The future of exchange security, therefore, isn’t a black box. It’s a hybrid model where AI handles the speed of the threat, but humans design the ethics of the response.

The Financial Firewall: When Code Isn’t Enough

While AI provides the digital shield, Vugar Usi, COO of Bitget, argues that the ultimate security layer is financial, not just digital. In an industry plagued by black swan events, relying solely on software to catch bad actors is insufficient. Exchanges must be solvent enough to absorb the shock if the technological walls are breached.

“We cannot rely on code alone to be perfect 100% of the time. That is a statistical impossibility. Real security means having a verifiable financial safety net. This is why the industry is shifting towards transparent Protection Funds. If the technical wall is breached, the user must still be made whole.”— Vugar Usi, COO at Bitget

Usi points out that the era of “trust me, bro” banking is over. The new standard combines active AI defense with passive, on-chain verifiable insurance.

“Proof of Reserves is the baseline, but Proof of Protection is the future,” Usi adds. “Users shouldn’t just trust us; they should verify our solvency in real-time. We are moving from an era of obscurity to an era where an exchange’s ability to cover losses is as visible as the blockchain itself.”

The future of exchange security, therefore, isn’t a black box. It’s a hybrid model where AI handles the speed of the threat (BingX), but transparent capital reserves act as the ultimate fail-safe (Bitget).

The Institutional Dilemma: Beyond Cold Storage

While individuals worry about phishing and exchanges worry about pattern recognition, institutions face a different problem entirely: Liquidity vs. Security.

For years, the gold standard for institutional custody was simple, deep cold storage. You generate keys offline, put them in a bunker (literally, sometimes), and require multiple humans to physically sign a transaction. It’s secure, but it’s slow. In a market where arbitrage opportunities vanish in milliseconds, waiting 24 hours to move funds from cold storage is a non-starter.

Conversely, Multi-Party Computation (MPC), where private key “shards” are split among different servers, offers speed but has historically been viewed as less secure than true air-gapped storage.

Arthur Firstov, CBO of Mercuryo, believes the industry is finally moving past this binary choice.

“The short answer: neither model wins on its own — the future is tiered custody,” Firstov says.

Firstov outlines a sophisticated architecture that mirrors traditional banking logistics but utilizes cryptographic primitives. He distinguishes between the needs of static asset managers (like Grayscale) and active trading firms, by enabling real-time transfers without giving up control of private keys.

“Cold storage still provides the highest assurance for long-term, offline reserves… It’s ideal for static AUM, but impossible to automate. MPC custody, pioneered by Fireblocks, Copper ClearLoop, and Coinbase Prime, solves that for active funds.”— Arthur Firstov, CBO at Mercuryo

But the real innovation, according to Firstov, is the emergence of Tiered Programmable Custody. But the real innovation, according to Firstov, is the emergence of Tiered Programmable Custody, which finally makes self-custody compatible with automation and high-frequency operations, and that’s why it will always sit at the outer boundary of any modern custody stack.

1. The Hot Layer: MPC-based smart accounts handle real-time execution and cross-venue routing.
2. The Warm Layer: Policy-guarded environments hold operational liquidity. Firstov points to the “Stripe’s Privy model” as an example, where encrypted wallet shares allow for usage under strict compliance boundaries.
3. The Cold Layer: The traditional offline hardware vault for long-term reserves.

“The real innovation isn’t just custody — it’s programmable governance over custody,” Firstov concludes. “Security becomes code, not ceremony.”

This shift allows institutions to set rules—such as “no transfers over $1M without three approvals” or “allow automated trading only on these whitelisted DEXs”—directly into the custody infrastructure, turning self-custody from a manual workflow into an automation-ready operating system.

The Glass House: Privacy and the Cost of Identity

As we secure the funds through hardware and programmable custody, we run into the final, perhaps most philosophical hurdle: Identity.

The blockchain is a transparent ledger. Every transaction is visible. For high-net-worth individuals and institutions (“whales”), this transparency is a security risk. If the world knows your wallet address, they can front-run your trades, target you for dusting attacks, or physically extort you.

Federico Variola, CEO of Phemex, admits that the dream of total privacy on a public ledger is fading, but suggests this might be a necessary trade-off for a mature market.

“There’s no way to completely avoid sacrificing some level of user privacy when making frequent transactions on a public ledger,” Variola states. He points to platforms like Hyperliquid, where large traders are essentially public figures.

However, Variola offers a counter-intuitive take: Centralized Exchanges (CEXs) are currently acting as the industry’s privacy layer. She says:

“Centralized exchanges… act almost like black boxes: once funds are transferred into them and then withdrawn, the on-chain trace is effectively reset.”

But relying on CEXs for privacy is a stopgap. The long-term solution lies in cryptographic innovation—specifically Zero-Knowledge (ZK) proofs and verifiable credentials. Variola sees a future where “Building a credible, verifiable on-chain identity enables users to access higher-quality opportunities… while still retaining meaningful control over how much of their activity they choose to reveal.”

This concept of “Verifiable Identity” allows a user to prove they are creditworthy or KYC-compliant without revealing their entire transaction history to the public.

The Data Bottleneck

However, there is a technical barrier to this vision of decentralized identity. To have a “reputation” on-chain, you need history. You need data. Currently, storing massive amounts of historical data on high-performance blockchains (like Solana) is prohibitively expensive.

Bernie Blume, Founder and CEO of Xandeum Labs, identifies this as the missing link:

“Decentralized identity needs a lot of decentralized historical data, that can then be aggregated into scores. Today, that historical [data] can only live off-chain, which makes the whole thing centralized again.”

Blume argues that for the “Reputation Age” of crypto to begin, we need a breakthrough in storage scaling. If your credit score relies on data stored on a centralized AWS server, you haven’t solved the problem.

Tech solutions like Xandeum aim to provide a scalable on-chain storage layer that allows this identity data to live alongside the financial transactions, immutable and decentralized.

Conclusion: The Layered Defense

As we look toward the next bull market and the mass adoption that may follow, the concept of “holding money” has fundamentally changed.

It is no longer just about a steel plate buried in the garden. It is a tiered system.