2026-01-08 02:29:41

Transparency disclosure of self-custody services is becoming an important theme now. In particular, the focus is on clarifying the scope of responsibility when users manage their own assets.

Several issues are involved in this. First, clearly defining the risks associated with system failures. Next, providing transparency of transaction history and appropriate export functions. These fundamental elements are unavoidable issues even when expanding services in Japan.

When obtaining approval from international payment brands like Visa, these requirements are naturally standard. In other words, without balancing user protection and building trust with service providers, it is impossible to establish a position in the market.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

24 Likes

Reward
24
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

Liquidated_Larry

· 01-11 02:16

Here we go again? Transparency, self-management... sounds good, but can Japan really implement it? To put it simply, when the system crashes, who will foot the bill? Don't just talk the talk.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagrant

· 01-10 08:53

That's right, self-custody really needs to be understood thoroughly, otherwise no one will feel secure... If the system crashes, it's just passing the buck. This kind of tactic has become old news.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainWorker

· 01-09 14:24

To be honest, this transparency requirement should have been implemented long ago. Those platforms that frequently experience system crashes and shift blame need to clarify who is responsible now.

View OriginalReply0

TokenSherpa

· 01-08 02:59

honestly tho, the whole transparency angle here is kind of where everything falls apart for most platforms... like, they'll talk a big game about custody clarity but then you dig into the actual terms and it's just word salad. visa's baseline requirements aren't even that high imo

Reply0

TokenVelocity

· 01-08 02:51

Honestly, the self-custody sector is really stuck right now, with responsibilities blurred beyond recognition. Who takes the blame when the system crashes? Can data exports be trusted? These seemingly small issues are actually big pitfalls. Visa is blocking everything tightly; without transparency, don't even think about passing the review.

View OriginalReply0

StableGeniusDegen

· 01-08 02:50

Ultimately, it still depends on whether the platform dares to be truly transparent, otherwise it's just empty talk.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-00be86fc

· 01-08 02:47

Transparency sounds great, but how many actually implement it? When the system crashes, who is responsible? This really needs to be clarified, or users will be left in the dark.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityWorker

· 01-08 02:43

Transparency has been talked about for so many years, but when it really matters, it still falls flat. Who's responsible if the system crashes? --- Japan's requirements are indeed strict; even Visa has to approve. It seems that self-managed wallets really need proper regulation. --- Responsibility must be clearly defined, or else it'll just be chaos. --- Being called transparent sounds nice, but honestly, it just means they don't want to take the blame... --- If the infrastructure isn't up to standard, trust will drop to zero—no chance of success. --- International payment license restrictions are so strict that they actually push the entire industry to be more honest. --- Can transaction records be exported? This is the most practical feature; other flashy features are meaningless.

View OriginalReply0