Topic starter
25/10/2026 11:04 am
TL;DR: Digital currency programmes that leave security until after build sign-off build up design and key-management risk, according to CertiK. Once value is moving, custody and oversight changes become costlier to reverse and harder to defend.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by CertiK: “How Central Banks Secure Digital Currency before Launch: Inside the CertiK and NBKR Deal”.
By the numbers:
- Web3 losses reached 3.35 billion in 2025, according to CertiK.
- Web3 losses reached 1.31 billion across 344 incidents in the first half of 2026, according to CertiK.
- CertiK says it has protected more than 600 billion in digital assets across more than 150 countries and regions since 2017.
Key questions
Q: Why do custody and key management matter so much in digital asset systems?
A: Because they determine who can move value, recover access, or override controls.
Q: What are the signs that a digital asset control model is failing?
A: The warning signs are delayed security review, unclear signing authority, weak evidence for supervisory oversight, and reliance on point-in-time assurance for a live system.
Q: What is the first control to put in place for a central bank digital currency programme?
A: The first control is to make security part of the architecture decision process, not a review step after build completion.
Practitioner guidance
- Embed security in the design phase Bring security and resilience review into architecture, key management, and supervisory design before any launch decision is finalised.
- Separate custody from operational access Define who can sign, who can recover, and who can monitor the system, then enforce those roles as distinct privileged functions.
- Use formal verification for high-impact behaviours Apply mathematical proof to the behaviours that matter most, such as value transfer, access boundaries, and recovery logic.
Bottom line: The article shows that digital currency risk grows when security is treated as a final checkpoint instead of a design constraint.
Glossary terms: Formal Verification, Digital-asset custody, Operational Resilience, AML/CFT Monitoring
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 7 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
27/10/2026 7:16 pm
Early security is a governance control, not a later-stage assurance activity. The article’s central lesson is that security review placed at the end of a digital currency project cannot fix structural choices about custody, settlement, privacy, or supervisory access. In systems that will handle real value, those decisions belong in the design phase because they define the operating risk envelope. Practitioner implication: move security, resilience, and key-governance review into the architecture stage.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should regulators oversee a live digital asset ecosystem?
A: They should combine technical security review with ongoing monitoring, case generation, and evidence that can be used in compliance and inspection workflows. A live system changes over time, so oversight must be continuous rather than episodic. The goal is not just to detect anomalies, but to preserve a defensible record of what happened and why it mattered.
👉 Read our full editorial: Central bank digital currency security must start before build sign-off
This post was modified 7 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group