# Non custodial

`kaal:entity:non-custodial`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 4 claims that carry the concept tag `non-custodial`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

4 claims across 3 works, 2021 to 2021.

**2021**

- [3936876-029](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3936876-029) [empirical/evidenced] -- Custodial service providers spend proportionally less on IT security than non custodial ones: custodians spend between 6 and 10 percent of resources on IT security while non custodial service providers spend between 11 and 20 percent.
  > Notably, custodians spend between 6% to 10% of their resources on IT security while non-custodial service providers spend between 11% to 20% of its resources, both financial and human, on IT security.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Hayley Howe, Custody of Digital Assets (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3936876
- [3936876-043](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3936876-043) [predictive/speculative] -- Centralized custody solutions and decentralized non custodial deal platforms will run in parallel until both are more established, and existing DeFi trends suggest the decentralized non custodial deal platforms will produce more innovation and better deals.
  > The existing trends in DeFi seem to suggest that the decentralized non-custodial deal platforms will have more innovation and better deals.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Hayley Howe, Custody of Digital Assets (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3936876
- [3949098-036](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3949098-036) [design/argued] -- The DAOIC pools no assets: the smart contract releases each member's deposit directly to the project after validation pool approval, and returns on purchases are likewise not pooled but paid pro rata to members in proportion to their reputation token holdings.
  > releases the deposit directly to the project. No pooling of assets takes place. The ROP from each deal is also not pooled but rather paid out pro rata to the DAOIC members in proportion to their RNFT holdings.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Reputation as Capital – How DAOs Upgrade Finance (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3949098
- [3962614-038](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3962614-038) [design/argued] -- In the non custodial DAO investment club model all of the return on purchase is minted into fungible reputation tokens that get paid as reputation salaries following decentralized governance, which provides the best incentive alignment for members and the highest potential return for all involved.
  > In this model, all of the ROP is minted into fungible reputation tokens that get paid as reputation salaries following decentralized governance. This model provides the best incentive alignment for DAOIC members with the highest potential return for all involved.
  Wulf A. Kaal, REPUTATION AS CAPITAL – How Decentralized Autonomous Organizations Address Shortcomings in the Ventu (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3962614

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/non-custodial.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.