✓ 16+ Years of Excellence|2,000+ Projects Delivered|98% Client Retention
HHurain TechnologiesHurain Engitech & Trade
Enterprise fintech platform dashboard built by Hurain Technologies
Blockchain & Crypto

MPC Wallet & Crypto Custody Infrastructure Development

Traditional key management concentrates risk in one place. Hurain Technologies builds MPC (multi-party computation) custody infrastructure where private keys are split across encrypted shares, so no single device or person ever holds the complete key. Designed for exchanges, funds, and DAOs that need institutional-grade security without a single point of failure.

Overview

What mpc wallet & crypto custody infrastructure development actually involves

Every custody architecture is ultimately answering one question: what has to go wrong for funds to be lost, and how many independent things have to go wrong at once. Traditional single-key custody has an uncomfortable answer — one compromised device, one coerced or careless employee, one lost backup. Multi-signature improves this by requiring several independent signatures, but does so on-chain, with the overhead and reduced privacy that comes with visibly broadcasting a multi-party approval structure to anyone watching the chain.

MPC (multi-party computation) solves the same underlying problem differently: the private key itself never exists in one place, even momentarily. Key shares are generated and held separately, and signing happens through a cryptographic protocol where parties jointly compute a valid signature without any of them — or an attacker who compromises one of them — ever reconstructing the full key. That means a compromised share alone is insufficient to move funds, the signing process works identically across chains instead of depending on each chain's own multi-sig implementation, and none of it is visible on-chain as a distinguishable multi-party structure.

The Challenge

Problems we see teams struggling with

Single point of failure risk

One compromised device or person with access to the full private key can drain funds.

On-chain multi-sig overhead

Traditional multi-signature wallets create blockchain overhead and reduced privacy.

Cross-chain custody complexity

Building custody per blockchain instead of one unified architecture wastes engineering effort.

Institutional audit readiness

Custody setups must meet SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards, which traditional key storage rarely does.

Operational bottlenecks from over-restrictive approval flows

Custody controls designed without input from the operations team that uses them daily often become so restrictive they get worked around, which defeats their purpose.

Disaster recovery gaps

Key-share backup and recovery procedures that haven't been tested leave a fund or exchange unable to access its own custody in a genuine emergency.

Our Approach

How Hurain Technologies solves it

MPC/TSS signing

Transactions signed collaboratively without ever reconstructing the full key.

No single point of failure

Key shares distributed across parties and HSMs so one breach cannot compromise custody.

Policy engine

Transaction limits, whitelists, and multi-step approvals enforced automatically.

Role-based access

Granular permissions so team members have exactly the access their role requires.

Multi-chain support

One custody architecture works across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other major chains.

Audit logging

Full, tamper-evident logs of every signing event for compliance review.

Tested disaster recovery procedures

Key-share backup and recovery processes designed and rehearsed before they're needed, not documented once and never verified.

Technology

Tech stack we work with

Cryptography

MPC protocolsThreshold Signature SchemesHSM integration

Infrastructure

Geographically distributed key sharesCold/warm/hot wallet orchestrationDisaster recovery

Compliance

SOC 2 controlsISO 27001 alignmentAudit logging

Monitoring

Real-time alertingAnomaly detectionIncident response

A typical deployment splits signing authority across a threshold scheme — for example, 3-of-5 — where key shares are held by geographically and organizationally distributed parties, so no single data center outage, insider, or regional compromise can either block legitimate signing or enable unauthorized signing. HSMs (hardware security modules) provide an additional hardware-backed layer protecting each individual share, so even a compromised server doesn't directly expose the share it holds.

The policy engine sits on top of the raw signing capability and is where most of the operational security actually lives day to day: transaction limits that require additional approval above a threshold, address whitelisting that blocks withdrawals to unrecognized destinations, and time-delay windows on large or unusual transactions that give a team time to catch and halt a fraudulent request before funds actually move.

Use Cases

Where mpc wallet & crypto custody infrastructure development gets used

Exchange custody infrastructure

Institutional-grade custody for exchanges holding customer funds across dozens of assets, with policy controls matched to operational withdrawal patterns.

Fund and asset manager custody

Custody architecture for funds needing SOC 2/ISO 27001-aligned controls to satisfy institutional investor and insurer due diligence.

DAO treasury management

Threshold signing for DAO treasuries that need distributed control without relying on a single trusted signer or an unwieldy on-chain multi-sig.

Corporate crypto treasury

Custody infrastructure for companies holding crypto on their balance sheet, with role-based access matching internal finance approval workflows.

Custodian-as-a-service platforms

White-label custody infrastructure for businesses that want to offer custody as a product to their own customers.

Proof

Results we've delivered

Client Result

A licensed exchange client needed institutional-grade custody for $500M+ AUM. Hurain Technologies delivered a 3-of-5 MPC setup across geographically distributed HSMs with SOC 2 audit readiness in 16 weeks.

Process

How an engagement runs

  1. 1

    Security architecture design

    Map threats and design MPC/TSS implementation.

  2. 2

    MPC protocol implementation

    Custom or vendor-based implementation based on timeline.

  3. 3

    Policy engine & workflows

    Transaction limits, approvals, and operational controls.

  4. 4

    Security review & audit

    Internal review plus independent third-party audit.

  5. 5

    Deployment with monitoring

    Production deployment with 24/7 monitoring and incident response.

Engagement Models

How we structure the work

Full custody platform build

A dedicated pod engagement designing and implementing complete MPC custody infrastructure, typically 12-20 weeks depending on chain and policy complexity.

SOC 2 / ISO 27001 readiness sprint

A focused engagement to bring an existing custody setup up to the audit-readiness standard institutional partners and insurers expect.

Policy engine and workflow configuration

A scoped engagement to design transaction limits, approval flows, and role-based access for an existing MPC deployment.

Ongoing custody operations retainer

24/7 monitoring, incident response, and operational support once the custody platform is live and holding real assets.

Pitfalls

Mistakes we see teams make

Never testing key-share recovery procedures

A disaster recovery plan that's only ever been written, not rehearsed, frequently fails at the exact moment it's actually needed.

Setting approval thresholds without operational input

Policy limits designed purely from a security standpoint, without input from the team executing withdrawals daily, often become friction people find ways around.

Concentrating key shares in one geographic region

Distributed key shares that all sit in the same data center or region reintroduce a single point of failure the MPC architecture was supposed to eliminate.

Skipping the independent security audit

Institutional partners and insurers generally won't accept a self-attested security posture — independent audit is usually a hard requirement, not optional due diligence.

Glossary

Key terms explained

MPC (Multi-Party Computation)
A cryptographic technique where multiple parties jointly compute a function (like a signature) over their private inputs without revealing those inputs to each other.
TSS (Threshold Signature Scheme)
A specific application of MPC where a valid signature can be produced by any subset of parties meeting a defined threshold, without reconstructing the full private key.
HSM (Hardware Security Module)
A dedicated hardware device that generates, stores, and uses cryptographic keys in a tamper-resistant environment.
SOC 2
An audit framework assessing a service organization's controls around security, availability, and confidentiality, commonly required by institutional counterparties.
Threshold (m-of-n)
A configuration where any m out of n total key shares are sufficient to sign a transaction, balancing security against operational availability.

FAQ

MPC Custody Infrastructure — frequently asked questions

MPC splits a private key into encrypted shares held separately, so transactions can be signed without ever reconstructing the full key in one place.

Markets We Cover

MPC Custody Infrastructure by country

Local regulatory context and delivery details for mpc custody infrastructure in each market we serve.

Åland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAnguillaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBermudaBhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBritish Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCabo VerdeCameroonCanadaCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChina, Hong Kong SARChina, Macao SARColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCôte d'IvoireCroatiaCubaCzech RepublicDemocratic People's Republic of KoreaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)FijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHoly SeeHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic Republic of)IraqIrelandIsle of ManItalyJamaicaJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)MonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPalauPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of MoldovaRepublic of South SudanRéunionRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Helena ex. dep.Saint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaState of PalestineSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandTajikistanTFYR of MacedoniaThailandTimor-LesteTongaTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Republic of TanzaniaUnited States Virgin IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Wallis and Futuna IslandsYemenZambiaZimbabwefootnoteSeqIDUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited Arab EmiratesCuraçaoCyprusPanamaMoroccoTanzaniaSouth KoreaVietnamHong Kong

Ready to start your mpc wallet & crypto custody infrastructure development project?

Book a discovery call and get a scoped technical estimate within 5 business days.