Japan Institutional Custody Three-Pillar Structure — Komainu / Ginco / Fireblocks Japan Comparison
On this page
Overview
The domestic institutional custody market is bifurcated along two axes: technology (cold vs MPC) × parent company (domestic vs overseas). Alongside VASP in-house custody (bitFlyer / Coincheck / bitbank, etc.), a B2B vendor layer (infrastructure for institutions, other VASPs, and financial institutions) has emerged, with Komainu / Ginco / Fireblocks Japan as its core players.
Three Company Profiles
Komainu Holdings (UK Jersey)
- Founded 2018 · Joint venture of Nomura HD + CoinShares + Ledger forming jp-custody-komainu
- Specialises in cold custody + offline signing for institutions and sovereign clients
- Clients include UAE government; acquisition of 2024-10 Propine accelerates Asia expansion
- Board holds jp-exchange-laser-digital-japan (Nomura-affiliated) executives + Blockstream dual-anchor structure
Ginco, Inc. (Domestic independent)
- Founded 2017 · Founder Yuuto Morikawa · 2026-04 CEO transition → Ryo Sakane jp-custody-ginco
- Provides Ginco Enterprise Wallet (MPC) + Ginco Node
- B2B SaaS · Serves VASPs / banks / trust banks / crypto asset exchange operators
- Domestic independent with no capital group affiliation; largest domestic VASP infrastructure provider
Fireblocks Japan (Overseas vendor Japan subsidiary)
- Global parent Fireblocks Inc. (NY HQ · 2018 Israel roots) jp-custody-fireblocks-japan
- MPC custody + policy engine + treasury workflow
- 2,400+ institutions globally · $10T+ cumulative transaction volume · Series E $550M ($8B valuation)
- Tokyo office 5 名scale · Supports Mitsui MDC (Zipangcoin RWA) + SMBC/Ava Labs/TIS SC (2025-04) + Minna no Ginko + CoinTrade, etc.
Technology / Business Model Comparison
| Axis | Komainu | Ginco | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | Cold + offline signing | MPC SaaS + node services | MPC + policy + workflow |
| Primary clients | Institutions, sovereign clients | Domestic VASPs / financial institutions | Thousands of institutions (global) |
| Pricing | Monthly fee / AUM-based | License fee / per-tx | Subscription |
| Parent | Nomura HD-affiliated (overseas entity) | Domestic independent | Overseas vendor (New York, US) |
Regulatory Positioning
All three hold no FSA crypto asset exchange registration (not required as B2B infrastructure) · FSA crypto-asset exchange registration system — number system / Local Finance Bureau jurisdiction / registration requirements · They operate as a vendor layer that relies on client-side VASP licenses.
Competitive Landscape (International Comparison)
Anchorage / Coinbase Custody / BitGo / Fidelity Digital Assets — none have entered the domestic market directly, or do so via partnerships (e.g. BitGo × Mitsui). Institutional pure custody continues to overlap with jp-exchange-crypto-garage-type Daiwa / SBI Securities Token connectivity businesses.
Sources: Company official corporate websites · Nikkei / ITmedia · Company IR reporting