Provide custodial services for digital and traditional assets under Wyoming law.

Act as a "qualified custodian" to investment advisers under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and the SEC Custody Rule (17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-2). Under the SEC Custody Rule, investment advisers are required to store customer assets with a "qualified custodian," which includes banks, as defined under the Advisers Act.

Provide custodial services for digital assets. Since digital assets have the same status as traditional assets in Wyoming, a Wyoming trust company may provide proper custodial services for virtual currency, digital securities, and digital consumer assets.

Consider itself a "qualified custodian" under the Advisers Act and the SEC Custody Rule. The Advisers Act includes a definition of bank and under this definition, lists the following factors that must be satisfied for a trust company to qualify as a bank:

Not all chartered, non-depository trust companies fall within the definition of "bank" under the Advisers Act.

Not all trust companies are "qualified custodians."

The letter does not represent the view of the SEC or any other regulatory agency.

Do state-chartered trust companies possess characteristics similar to those of the types of financial institutions the SEC identifies as qualified custodians? If yes, to what extent?

In what ways are custodial services that are provided by state-chartered trust companies equivalent to those provided by banks, broker-dealers, and futures commission merchants (FCMs)? In what ways do they differ? Would there be any gaps in, or enhancements to, protection of advisory client assets as a result of a state-chartered trust company serving as qualified custodian of digital assets or other types of client assets?

How do advisers assess whether an entity offering custodial services satisfies the definition of qualified custodian under the Custody Rule? What qualities does an adviser seek when entrusting a client's assets to a particular custodian? Do the qualities vary by asset class? That is, are there qualities that would be important for safeguarding digital assets that might not be important for safeguarding other types of assets? If so, what qualities and why? Should the rule prescribe different qualities based on asset class, or should the rule take a more principles-based approach and allow advisers to exercise care in selecting a custodian?

Are there entities that currently satisfy the definition of qualified custodian under the Custody Rule that should not be included within that definition because they do not meet the policy goals of the rule? If so, which ones and why? Conversely, are there entities that currently do not satisfy the definition of qualified custodian but should? If so, which ones and why?