Saturday, October 31, 2026

Goldman Sachs Says Yes to Cryptocurrency Custody Service and No to Trading Service

Ruchi Gupta

September 6, 2018

Goldman Sachs Tower in Jersey city. Photo by: Oriez.
Goldman Sachs was never in the running to set up a cryptocurrency trading desk. Over the past few months, reports have made headlines indicating that the investment company was considering opening a cryptocurrency trading desk that would allow people to buy and sell various virtual currencies. However, as it stands, that won’t be the case. The bank reportedly downgraded plans to set up a crypto trading desk on concerns over the uncertain crypto regulatory landscape. After months of study, Goldman Scans concluded that a number of steps still need to be taken’ before a regulated bank delved deeper into the cryptocurrency business. [caption id="attachment_5194" align="aligncenter" width="696"]Goldman Sachs Tower in Jersey city. Photo by: Oriez. Goldman Sachs Tower in Jersey city. Photo by: Oriez.[/caption] "In response to client interest in various digital products, we are exploring how best to serve them in the space. At this point, we have not reached a conclusion on the scope of our digital asset offering,” a company spokesman in a statement.

Goldman Crypto Custody Program

Instead, the investment bank is to focus its attention on a custody program with a view of providing crypto storage services for large institutional investors. The bank is to hold cryptocurrencies on behalf of its clients and track price changes as well. Such a service seeks to address an emerging market need that has come into being as institutional investors eye opportunities in the burgeoning sector. A lack of reliable cryptocurrency custody services has forced a good number of investors to go slow on cryptocurrency investments something that Goldman Scans seeks to address with the custody service. Goldman Sachs is set to compete for market share with other companies also looking to provide cryptocurrency custody services to institutional investors. Coinbase and BitGo are some of the cryptocurrency exchange in the running to offer custody services. Mainstream companies Fidelity, Normura, and JPMorgan, are also considering similar offerings. Even though Goldman Sachs won’t be operating a crypto trading desk soon, it still makes markets in Bitcoin (BTC) that allow investors to buy and sell the cryptocurrency without owning the underlying asset.
What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
ESMO 2026 Oncology Data Wave Builds Toward Ivonescimab PDUFA, While Micro-Cap Biotech Exits the Market
Late October 2026 is a dense catalyst window led by ESMO 2026. Daiichi Sankyo's DXd antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) programs (DESTINY-Lung04, DESTINY-Breast11, REJOICE-Ovarian01/02, TUXEDO-3), Guardant's 25 abstracts and the PACE-LUNG ctDNA trial all report there. These feed into the FDA's 14 November 2026 PDUFA date for ivonescimab. Large and mid-cap developers with late-stage data and commercial launches (ZEGFROVY, ANKTIVA, MIUDELLA, lorundrostat, duvakitug) are drawing capital and attention. Spago Nanomedical's board decision to seek a Nasdaq First North delisting (EGM 19 November, application 25 January 2027) shows the capital squeeze on early-stage, single-asset names (Tumorad is Phase I).
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
EPKINLY Regulatory-Clinical Success Cascade
High probability of expanded label indications, additional combination approvals, and competitive positioning strength in follicular lymphoma market. Predicts positive commercial uptake and potential accelerated review for related indications.
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
Ford Motor Company
Both facts give cash for Ford Motor Company at the same point in time (2025-12-31; FY 2025 year-end and Q4 2025 year-end are the same date). Both are labelled USD, but the values are 23,356,000,000 and 23.356, which cannot both be true in USD. The two numbers agree once the second is read as billions (23.356 bn = 23,356,000,000), so the economic content is consistent and the conflict is a unit/scale error in the Q4 2025 record. The period is not the reason for the conflict: a Q4 and an FY figure at the same year-end date should match.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,994
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,994 facts checked against source5,514 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com