In any API-based platform where a company operates as broker and someone else operates as a custodian, the broker is still the man-in-the-middle and can send any commands to the custodian to move the funds. There is no reduction of a supposed moral hazard. Makes zero sense, so why would Swan keep trying o hammer this point as if it gives them some sort of higher ground?

This separation may be useful from a business perspective for a broker who wants to not have to deal with money transmission licenses or other requirements a custodian may face, but it's simply double custodial, so it's like having two people each with guns pointed out you, with either able to pull the trigger -- in the case of Swan it was as many as 3 with Prime Trust supposedly using BitGo too.

Maybe they should focus instead on getting access to a real exchange that gets their customers real prices instead of their ridiculous RFQ nonsense. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/ftx-collapse-cause-huge-bitcoin-price-spike