Komainu

• Name: Komainu
• URL: https://komainu.com/
• Category: institutional custody / collateral-management / venue-connectivity operating stack
• Tags: bitcoin-ecosystem ethereum-ecosystem
• Summary: Komainu belongs as an entity note, not a protocol note. The useful question is who controls the regulated workflow layer that combines custody, collateral locking, venue connectivity, staking access, tokenization support, and multi-jurisdiction legal wrappers. Custody is only the front label; the practical leverage sits with the Komainu-run operating shell and the affiliated entities that decide which workflow, protections, and counterparties are actually available.
• What it does:
  • Provides institutional custody with segregated onchain wallets, off-balance-sheet treatment, wallet-technology choices, reporting, and governance-heavy operational support
  • Runs Komainu Connect so clients can trade, borrow, and lend through partner venues while assets remain in Komainu custody under Account Control Agreements rather than being pre-funded out to venues
  • Runs Komainu CORE as a collateral-management product with asset-lock controls, control notices, API-visible collateral state, whitelisted counterparty management, and liquidation support
  • Offers custodial staking so institutions can delegate and compound rewards while keeping assets inside Komainu’s regulated custody perimeter
  • Operates through multiple regulated entities across Jersey, Dubai, the UK, and Singapore, which matters because the legal wrapper is part of the product and not just a footnote
• Key claims:
  • The homepage presents Komainu as an Institutional Gateway and explicitly groups custody, Connect, CORE, tokenization, regulation, governance, and reporting into one operating stack rather than marketing a single narrow product
  • The Connect page says clients can trade, borrow, and lend without pre-funding third-party venues because assets remain in segregated wallets with onchain transparency, legal agreements, and intra-day settlement intervals
  • The CORE materials frame Komainu as more than a custodian by emphasizing enforceable asset locking, whitelisted counterparties, collateral governance, and liquidation workflow for default scenarios
  • The custody and security pages say assets remain in bankruptcy-remote segregated onchain wallets while Komainu supplies zero-trust security architecture, continuous monitoring, and institutional reporting / governance workflow
  • The entities page is one of the most important primary sources because it makes the operating shell legible across Jersey entities, Dubai VARA licensing, UK FCA MLR registration, and Singapore corporate presence
  • The staking page matters because it shows Komainu extending beyond safekeeping into validator / rewards workflow while keeping the assets and reporting boundary inside its own platform
• Whitepaper: No classic standalone whitepaper is the point here. The clearest primary materials are Komainu’s official site, custody / Connect / CORE / staking pages, security page, entities page, supported-assets docs, and the CORE launch materials; see ../whitepapers/komainu-primary-sources-2026-04-27.md.
• Sources:
  • https://komainu.com/
  • https://komainu.com/services/custody/
  • https://komainu.com/services/komainu-connect/
  • https://komainu.com/services/komainu-core/
  • https://komainu.com/services/staking/
  • https://komainu.com/expertise/security/
  • https://komainu.com/entities/
  • https://docs.komainu.io/introduction/supported-assets
  • https://komainu.com/insights/komainu-launches-komainu-core-a-new-collateral-as-a-service-offering-for-institutions/
  • https://komainu.com/insights/beyond-custody-why-connectivity-will-define-the-next-era/

Internal linkages

• Project-layer alias: komainu.
• Strongest adjacent operator-stack reads: bitgo, anchorage-digital, and zodia-custody.
• Useful workflow contrast where more authority stays in client-held or app-held signing layers: unchained and bitkey.
• Reusable lens: when custody, collateral locking, venue access, and legal-entity coverage travel together, the real control surface usually sits with the operator boundary rather than with any one wallet or settlement product.

Protocol / company boundary

• There is not a very useful standalone Komainu protocol doing most of the analytical work.
• The important questions are which Komainu entity the client faces, which venues and counterparties are admitted through Connect or CORE, what lock and liquidation rights exist around collateral, and how staking / reporting / governance workflows remain inside Komainu’s perimeter.
• That is why this note belongs in companies/: the live dependency is the operating organization and its legal wrappers, not a neutral lower-layer mechanism that survives cleanly without them.

Control surface

• Authority sits in wallet provisioning, approval and governance workflow, venue and counterparty admission, collateral lock semantics, liquidation handling, staking-path exposure, reporting defaults, and the multi-entity regulatory shell that decides which product can run where.

• Onchain visibility does not make the surrounding workflow neutral. If Komainu still decides the custody perimeter, collateral-control logic, partner connectivity, and operational escalation path, the practical dependency remains at the company boundary.

• Treat Komainu as institutional operator infrastructure first. Custody is only the front label.

• Last reviewed: 2026-08-06 UTC