# kaal:claim:3936876-024

**Claim.** Applying the trust label to digital asset firms without an accompanying fiduciary duty is problematic, because the typical legal obligation of a trust company is to place customers' interests above its own.

**Type.** normative  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- state trust charters used by digital asset firms

**Source quote.**

> The applicability of the trust label to digital asset firms, without a fiduciary duty, can be problematic. A typical legal obligation for trust companies is a fiduciary duty – to place customers' interests above the company's own.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Hayley Howe, *Custody of Digital Assets* (2021), III.1 Depository Institution Requirements, page 21

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Hayley Howe, Custody of Digital Assets (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3936876

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `9bc0903d01910460298e754c451f027df4324367359800a98ee8e638d94aff55` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Howe%20-%202021%20-%20Custody%20of%20Digital%20Assets.pdf

**Failure mode.** trust charter without fiduciary duty  (family: adoption-and-usability-barrier)

**Topics.** reputation, governance-design, corporate-governance, regulatory-failure

**Keywords.** trust-charter, fiduciary-duty, regulatory-arbitrage, digital-asset-firms

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.