Kraken Institutional has chosen Upshift to build yield infrastructure for large clients that hold digital assets but do not actively deploy them, marking another step in the race to make custody accounts more productive without moving assets into traditional pooled yield products.
The arrangement is designed to let institutional clients earn yield on idle holdings such as Bitcoin, Ether and stablecoins while keeping custody controls in place. Instead of sending assets into a shared fund structure, the system will use individualized non-custodial vaults that can be adjusted to match each client’s strategy, risk limits and liquidity needs.
Under the model, client assets will be placed into separate vaults managed by approved professional curators. Those vaults can allocate assets to selected onchain contracts. In return, clients receive receipt tokens that are held in segregated Kraken accounts. Compliance checks and accounting rules are expected to operate at both the protocol level and the token level.
The structure reflects a broader shift across digital asset markets. Custody providers and trading platforms are trying to move beyond simple safekeeping and offer tools that allow large holders to put assets to work. At the same time, compliance teams remain cautious after several years of regulatory scrutiny, failed lending platforms and legal uncertainty around yield programs.
Kraken Institutional and Upshift are positioning the new system as a more controlled alternative to the pooled vaults that became common in decentralized finance. In many early DeFi yield products, assets from many users were placed into a single pool and deployed according to a shared strategy. The new approach is closer to a bespoke vault structure, where each client can have a separate set of rules, approved protocols and exposure limits.
How the vault structure works
The central feature of the arrangement is the individualized vault. Rather than combining client assets in one shared pool, the infrastructure creates distinct non-custodial vaults. Each vault can be configured around the type of assets deposited, the protocols that may be used, the level of risk accepted and the timing of withdrawals.
Once assets enter a vault, they can be directed to onchain contracts selected by curators. Those curators are expected to operate within pre-set policy limits. The system then issues receipt tokens representing the client’s position. Those receipt tokens remain in segregated accounts, helping preserve a clear record of ownership and exposure.
This is important for large institutions because accounting, reporting and compliance standards are often stricter than those used by retail traders. A treasury desk, asset manager or trading firm may need to show exactly where assets are held, which contracts they interact with, what risks are present and how returns are generated.
The model also aims to reduce reliance on extra intermediaries. Upshift’s technology is intended to connect vault management with institutional custody workflows, allowing yield generation without requiring clients to create new wallets or move funds through a long chain of third parties.
That point matters because older yield models often required users to send assets to external platforms, give up direct control or accept unclear contract risk. Some products offered high returns but provided limited transparency. When markets turned, many traders discovered that they had little visibility into how funds were being used.
A move away from older pooled models
The bespoke vault approach is a clear move away from the pooled-fund style used by some DeFi protocols, including earlier yield aggregators such as Yearn. Pooled systems can be efficient because they combine assets and deploy them at scale. However, they can also create complications for institutions that need individual reporting, custom risk controls and legal clarity.
In a pooled structure, all participants are generally exposed to the same strategy. If that strategy changes, every participant may be affected. If the pool interacts with a risky protocol, the exposure can spread across all deposits. If regulators question the structure, the entire pool may come under pressure.
By contrast, a customized vault can limit exposure to specific assets, contracts or strategies. One client might permit only short-duration stablecoin strategies. Another might allow Ether staking-related exposure. A third might restrict activity to protocols that meet internal compliance standards. The point is not only to earn yield, but to control how that yield is earned.
That flexibility is increasingly important as digital assets become part of professional treasury and trading operations. Large firms may hold Bitcoin, Ether or stablecoins for liquidity, settlement or portfolio reasons. But when those assets sit idle, they create an opportunity cost, especially in a market where traditional cash instruments can generate returns.
The new infrastructure is meant to address that gap while avoiding some of the problems that damaged confidence in earlier crypto yield products.
Why custody providers are adding yield tools
Custody has become one of the most competitive parts of the digital asset industry. In the early years of crypto, secure storage was the main selling point. For institutions, qualified custody, insurance arrangements, private-key controls and audit trails were the core requirements.
That is changing. As more professional firms hold digital assets, custody is becoming a base layer rather than a complete service. Clients increasingly want execution, financing, reporting, collateral management and yield options connected to the same custody environment.
This has pushed custody firms and trading service providers to create more integrated platforms. Anchorage, BitGo and other institutional digital asset firms have been developing ways to connect custody with onchain activity. The goal is to let clients deploy assets without abandoning the controls that made custody services attractive in the first place.
For Kraken Institutional, the Upshift arrangement fits into that broader effort. The company has described its institutional business as combining custody with tools commonly associated with prime brokerage. That includes services that help clients trade, manage collateral and handle operational workflows across digital asset markets.
Upshift brings the vault infrastructure. The company operates across multiple blockchains, including Stellar and Solana, and focuses on business-to-business infrastructure rather than consumer-facing apps. It raised $10 million in Series A funding led by Dragonfly in March 2025. Its technology supports programmable vault contracts that can apply policy controls across different asset classes.
Stablecoins make idle balances more important
The demand for yield on idle digital assets has grown alongside the stablecoin market. Stablecoins are now central to crypto trading, cross-border settlement and onchain liquidity. They are also increasingly used as digital cash by firms that need fast movement of dollar-linked assets.
The global supply of fiat-pegged tokens had grown to more than $295 billion by February 2026, with Tether accounting for about $184 billion of that total. A large share of those balances is used actively in trading and settlement. But a meaningful amount can sit unused in custody accounts, cold storage or operational wallets.
Idle stablecoins create a clear business question: should large holders leave them untouched for safety, or find controlled ways to earn a return? The answer has become more complicated since regulators began drawing sharper lines between payment tokens, lending products and yield-bearing structures.
The GENIUS Act, passed in July 2025, established federal standards for payment stablecoins in the United States. The law strengthened the separation between payment token activity and yield programs. That increased the need for platforms to design products that clearly distinguish custody from return-generating strategies.
For compliance departments, the distinction is not just technical. It affects disclosures, legal treatment, client classification, accounting and operational controls. A stablecoin held in custody is one type of asset. A stablecoin deployed into a smart contract to earn yield may carry different legal and risk characteristics.
That is one reason individualized vaults are gaining attention. They can make it easier to document what assets are doing, which protocols are involved and who approved the strategy.
Regulatory pressure shapes product design
The digital asset industry’s history with yield products has made regulators wary. Several lending and yield platforms collapsed during the last market cycle, leaving customers with frozen balances and unclear claims. In many cases, users believed they were depositing assets into simple interest-bearing accounts, only to learn that the platforms had taken on broad lending, trading or liquidity risks.
Those failures changed how institutional products are built. Providers now face pressure to show more transparency, stronger segregation of assets and clearer risk disclosures. They also need to avoid structures that could be treated as unregistered securities offerings or collective investment vehicles.
Custom vaults may help address some of those concerns, although they do not remove risk. Smart contracts can fail. Protocols can be exploited. Liquidity can dry up. Governance rules can change. Even when custody remains strong, the moment assets are deployed onchain, they face the risks of the underlying contracts and markets.
The advantage of a bespoke structure is that it can make those risks more visible and easier to manage. Instead of a broad pooled strategy with many hidden exposures, a client can review a defined set of approved actions. Controls can be written into the vault. Reporting can be tied to specific tokens and protocols. Accounting can track the receipt tokens generated from each deployment.
That level of detail is likely to matter for regulated firms, asset managers, hedge funds, market makers and corporate treasuries that must answer to boards, auditors and compliance officers.
Competition is moving toward onchain deployment
The Kraken Institutional and Upshift collaboration also reflects a competitive shift among institutional service providers. Holding client assets safely is no longer enough to stand out. The ability to deploy those assets in a controlled way is becoming a major differentiator.
Firms that offer custody but no yield options may face pressure from clients seeking more efficient balance-sheet use. At the same time, platforms that offer yield without strong custody protections may struggle to win business from larger institutions.
The market is moving toward hybrid models: custody connected to onchain access, but with risk controls, reporting and segregation built in. This is especially important as institutions use digital assets not only for long-term exposure but also for settlement, collateral and liquidity management.
Major trading platforms are also under pressure to provide similar tools. Coinbase, for example, reported $361 billion in trading volume during the first quarter of this year, showing the scale of activity among leading platforms. Large volumes can translate into large idle balances between trades, settlement cycles or collateral movements. That creates demand for tools that can earn returns without preventing fast access to liquidity.
Still, yield products must be carefully balanced against liquidity needs. Traders who rely on quick access to capital cannot lock all funds in strategies that may take time to unwind. A vault structure can help by allowing different liquidity settings, but the trade-off between yield and flexibility remains.
What this means for professional traders
For professional traders, the main development is not simply the promise of extra yield. It is the attempt to combine yield generation with custody discipline, account segregation and protocol-level controls.
That combination could make digital asset operations more efficient. Bitcoin and Ether holdings that would otherwise remain idle may be deployed selectively. Stablecoin balances may be directed into approved onchain opportunities. At the same time, clients may retain clearer visibility into where assets are placed and what risks they carry.
The appeal is strongest for firms with large balances and mature operational controls. These firms are often unwilling to use opaque products, but they also do not want capital sitting unproductive for long periods. A vault system gives them a middle path: not risk-free, but more structured than the open-ended yield farms of earlier DeFi cycles.
The broader industry impact will depend on execution. If the system delivers transparent reporting, reliable controls and smooth liquidity management, similar models are likely to spread across the institutional market. If contract risk, accounting complexity or regulatory concerns prove difficult, adoption may be slower.
For now, the partnership shows where the custody business is heading. Digital asset safekeeping is becoming more active, more programmable and more connected to onchain markets. The central challenge is to make that activity useful without repeating the mistakes of earlier yield platforms.
Kraken Institutional’s selection of Upshift suggests that institutional crypto services are moving toward customized infrastructure rather than one-size-fits-all products. In a market shaped by regulation, risk management and the search for efficient capital use, individualized vaults may become a standard feature of professional digital asset custody.
Institutions exploring compliant onchain yield should also consider Toobit’s institutional-grade products like Toobit Earn for diversified strategies.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
