If you searched for a Bitcoin loan that uses collaborative custody or multisig and came back with a list of ten lenders, the list was wrong. Among the ten active general-purpose Bitcoin lenders we track, exactly one holds loan collateral in a collaborative multisignature vault.
This page is the direct answer to that question, the reason the number is one rather than ten, and the distinction most comparison pages blur: a qualified custodian is not collaborative custody, and neither one is the same as a promise not to rehypothecate.
The short answer
Of the ten active general-purpose lenders we track, one holds collateral in collaborative multisig. Here is the whole set grouped by custody model, pulled live from our lender data rather than typed into this page.
A multisignature arrangement where you hold one of the keys, so no single party can move the collateral alone.
Collateral sits with a regulated custodian, segregated from the lender's own funds.
The lender holds your bitcoin directly, with no third-party qualified custodian. Convenient, but the safety depends on the lender's own practices and solvency.
Lender facts on this page render live from our comparison database, last verified August 4, 2026. Figures refresh weekly; for the current set and your own loan size, see the comparison tool.
Only Unchained appears under collaborative multisig. Everyone else sits under a qualified custodian or a lender-held pool, and the difference between those two is larger than most comparisons admit.
Why only one
Collaborative custody means the collateral sits in a multisignature wallet where you hold one of the keys required to spend. Unchained's loans use a 2-of-3 arrangement: you hold one key, Unchained holds one, and an independent third-party key agent holds the third. Any two of the three can move the coins, so the lender can enforce the liquidation terms you agreed to, but it cannot move your collateral on its own, cannot lend it out, and cannot hand it to its own creditors.
That structure is expensive to operate. It needs signing procedures, a key agent relationship, inheritance and recovery processes, and support for borrowers who lose a key. It also removes the lender's ability to do anything useful with the collateral while it sits there, which is one of the levers other lenders use to fund cheaper loans.
The price reflects it. Unchained charges 14.18% APR with a 2% origination fee, against a floor of 7.25% at Arch and 7.49% at SALT. On a $200,000 loan the gap between Unchained and the cheapest custodial option is roughly $13,800 a year plus $4,000 in origination. That is not a credit-risk premium. It is close to the cost of the custody model itself, and whether it is worth paying depends entirely on which risk you are trying to remove.
Unchained also restricts who can borrow. Its lending product serves business entities, with a $150,000 minimum, so individuals and sole proprietors are not eligible. For most retail borrowers, the practical answer to "can I get a multisig Bitcoin loan" is no, and the useful next question is which custodial model comes closest.
Three custody models, and what each one actually protects against
The word "custody" hides three genuinely different arrangements. They fail in different ways, and the differences only become visible when something goes wrong.
You hold a key (collaborative multisig)
No single party can move the collateral alone. Closest to self-custody.
Qualified custodian
A regulated third party holds it, segregated from the lender.
Lender-held (segregated)
The lender holds your bitcoin, but does not reuse it.
Lender-held + rehypothecated
The lender holds your bitcoin and may re-lend or reuse it.
Collaborative multisig
You hold a key. The lender cannot spend without a second signature it does not control alone. If the lender becomes insolvent, your key is still a key, and the collateral is not obviously part of the bankruptcy estate in the way pooled coins are.
What it does not protect against: the liquidation you agreed to. Two of three keys can move the collateral, and the lender plus the key agent is two. Multisig prevents movement outside the contract, not movement under it.
Qualified custodian
A regulated third party holds the collateral on the lender's behalf. Arch uses Anchorage Digital, a federally chartered custodian regulated by the OCC. APX Lending uses BitGo Trust. Ledn uses a set including BitGo, Anchorage and Fidelity Digital Assets.
This is a real improvement over a lender holding coins itself. The custodian is separately regulated and capitalised, assets are typically segregated and bankruptcy-remote, and there is a third party with its own licence at stake. See qualified custodian for what the designation requires.
What it does not give you: a key. You are trusting the custodian's controls and the legal structure between lender and custodian. That is a different bet from multisig, not a strictly weaker one. A federally chartered custodian has audit and capital requirements no individual key holder can match, and most people are a bigger threat to their own key than Anchorage is to its cold storage.
Lender-held pool
The lender holds collateral in its own wallets. SALT, Strike, CoinRabbit and Nexo work this way. Figure is a variant: it operates Fireblocks MPC infrastructure itself rather than placing coins with an independent custodian, so the technology is institutional but the operator is the lender.
Pooled custody is not automatically bad, and four of the five lenders above state they do not re-lend collateral. What it means is that your protection is contractual and operational rather than structural. If the lender fails, you are a creditor.
Custody model and rehypothecation are different questions
This is where most comparisons go wrong, and it is worth being precise because the two get used interchangeably.
Rehypothecation is the re-lending of pledged collateral to other counterparties. It is a use question. Custody model is a location and control question. A lender can hold your coins in its own pooled wallet and never lend them out, and a lender could in principle place coins with a qualified custodian and still have terms permitting re-use.
In our current set the two questions have different answers:
Collateral is not re-lent or reused. The failure mode behind the 2022 collapses is removed.
The lender may put your pledged bitcoin to work elsewhere while the loan is open.
Nine of ten state they do not rehypothecate, including all four pooled-custody lenders. Nexo is the exception: its standard terms permit rehypothecation, and whether the US structure operated with Bakkt segregates collateral has not been confirmed to us.
So "who does not rehypothecate" is a nine-lender answer, and "who gives me a key" is a one-lender answer. If you have been treating those as the same filter, you have been ruling out eight lenders unnecessarily. The no-rehypothecation comparison filters on the first question specifically.
How to choose between them
The honest framing is not which model is safest, but which failure you are least willing to accept.
If your concern is the lender failing and your coins being caught in the estate, collaborative multisig is structurally the strongest answer available, and a qualified custodian with segregated, bankruptcy-remote holding is the next best. Pooled custody is the weakest on this specific axis regardless of the lender's re-lending policy.
If your concern is the collateral being lent onward and lost through someone else's default, the rehypothecation column is what you want, and nine lenders pass. Custody model is close to irrelevant here.
If your concern is losing access through your own error, multisig is arguably worse, not better. You are now responsible for a key, its backup, and your heirs' ability to use it. A qualified custodian removes that burden entirely.
If cost dominates, the custodial options are 6 to 7 percentage points cheaper, and at typical loan sizes that gap is larger than most people expect when they start shopping on custody model alone. Run the numbers on the loan calculator before deciding the premium is worth it.
Where to compare directly
The head-to-heads that isolate this decision are Unchained vs Ledn (multisig against a qualified custodian at roughly a 4 point rate gap), Unchained vs Strike (multisig against a no-fee pooled lender), and Arch vs Unchained (the two structurally strongest custody positions, priced 7 points apart).
If you want the whole set on one screen with custody as a sortable column, use the comparison tool or browse every lender review. For the on-chain alternative, where custody is a smart contract rather than a company, see CeFi vs DeFi Bitcoin loans.
What we could not verify
Two gaps are worth stating rather than papering over.
CoinRabbit does not publicly disclose which custodian holds collateral. It states it uses cold storage, multisig internally, and full reserves with no re-lending, but those are operational claims rather than third-party-verified arrangements, and internal multisig is not collaborative custody: you hold no key. CoinRabbit's terms also bar US residents, so it is not a live option for most readers here.
For Nexo, we asked directly whether the US structure operated through Bakkt segregates collateral, and have not received an answer. Its standard terms permit rehypothecation, and that is what our data reflects until we are told otherwise in writing.
This is not financial advice
borrow/on/bitcoin is a comparison publisher, not a lender, broker, or financial advisor. We may receive compensation from some lenders featured on this page, which does not influence our default ordering or the custody data we publish. Custody arrangements and rehypothecation terms vary by lender and change without notice, so verify current terms directly with each lender before you borrow. No custody model removes the risk of losing your collateral to a margin call, and a Bitcoin-backed loan can result in the loss of your Bitcoin.