Finery Markets Integrates Fireblocks Custody Technology

Table of Contents

Finery Markets enhances trading with Fireblocks integration

  • Finery Markets has integrated Fireblocks’ custody technology to automate off-exchange trading and settlement workflows.
  • The link connects Finery Markets’ Execution Management System (EMS) with Fireblocks’ custody and settlement layers.
  • Clients can initiate settlements from within the Finery Markets interface, with automated data flow to custody vaults.
  • The design keeps trade execution structurally separate from asset safety, while supporting post-trade netting.

Integrated Execution and Custody Control
– What’s integrated: Finery Markets’ Execution Management System (EMS) is linked to Fireblocks’ custody and settlement layers.
– What changes operationally: settlement can be initiated from within the Finery Markets interface, with automated data flow to custody vaults.
– Control principle emphasized: “structural separation between trade execution and asset safety.”
– Scale signals cited for the custody layer: Fireblocks is described as supporting 150+ blockchains, trusted by 2,400+ organizations, and having managed $10T+ in digital assets.

Integration Overview

Finery Markets, an ICT solutions provider for institutional digital asset trading, has integrated Fireblocks’ custody technology with a clear operational goal: automate off-exchange trading and settlement workflows that have historically been fragmented across tools, teams, and interfaces.

The announcement centers on connecting Finery Markets’ Execution Management System (EMS) with Fireblocks’ custody and settlement layers. In practical terms, this means institutions that already rely on Fireblocks for custody can keep that custody stack in place while bringing settlement initiation into the same environment where execution is managed.

The integration is positioned as a “vertically integrated workflow” for institutional clients—yet one that preserves a key institutional principle: structural separation between trade execution and asset safety. Rather than collapsing execution and custody into a single risk domain, the architecture is framed as linking systems while keeping responsibilities distinct.

Streamlined Trade-to-Settlement Workflow
Think of this as “one workflow, two domains.” Execution stays in the EMS (pricing, routing, trade capture), while custody and settlement stay in Fireblocks (vault controls, transfer execution). The integration’s practical aim is to reduce the number of handoffs between those domains—especially when turning a filled OTC trade into a correctly instructed settlement.

Linking Execution Management with Custody Layers

That separation matters in institutional market structure because it mirrors established electronic trading norms: execution systems optimize price discovery, routing, and workflow; custody systems prioritize control, safekeeping, and settlement integrity. Finery Markets and Fireblocks are effectively arguing that digital asset markets can move “on-chain” while still respecting these time-tested boundaries.

Konstantin Shulga, CEO and co-founder at Finery Markets, framed the strategy in those terms:

“The future of institutional trading is on-chain, but within architectures backed by the time-tested principles of independence, capital efficiency, and netted settlements. These are the fundamentals of institutional electronic trading. Together, Finery Markets and Fireblocks deliver the rails to match these principles with the innovations of digital custody.”
Konstantin Shulga, CEO and Co-founder, Finery Markets

Operationally, the linkage is meant to reduce the friction that comes from running execution in one system and custody actions in another. Instead of treating custody as a separate “after the fact” step, the integration makes custody-aware settlement a native part of the execution workflow—while still relying on Fireblocks vaults and settlement infrastructure for the actual movement and safeguarding of assets.

Unified Execution and Custody Workflow
Execution vs. custody (and what the integration connects)
– EMS (Finery Markets): captures the trade, manages execution workflow, and becomes the place where settlement is initiated.
– Custody & settlement (Fireblocks): holds assets in vaults and executes the actual transfers/settlement actions.
– The “link”: automated exchange of settlement-relevant data so the execution workflow can trigger custody-side settlement without re-keying details or switching tools.
– The boundary that stays intact: execution decisions and custody controls remain separate responsibilities, even if the workflow feels unified.

Optimizing OTC Market Operations

The integration is explicitly aimed at financial institutions operating in the over-the-counter (OTC) digital asset market, where trading and settlement often happen “off-exchange” and workflows can be operationally heavy.

Finery Markets describes the technical alignment as designed to optimize digital asset operations for institutions in OTC. The mechanism is the combination of Finery Markets’ liquidity network with Fireblocks’ infrastructure, enabling automated data exchange between trading environments and custody vaults. That automation is intended to support seamless post-trade netting—an institutional concept that reduces the number of settlement movements required after multiple trades.

In OTC markets, where counterparties may execute multiple bilateral trades across a day, netting can be a meaningful operational lever: fewer transfers, fewer touchpoints, and a cleaner post-trade process. The announcement does not quantify netting benefits, but it positions netted settlements as a foundational institutional principle that the combined “rails” are built to support.

The emphasis on “off-exchange trading and settlement workflows” also signals a focus on the parts of the lifecycle that are often the least standardized: confirming trades, preparing settlement instructions, and coordinating movements between counterparties and custody providers. By integrating execution and custody layers, Finery Markets is effectively targeting the handoffs where delays and errors are most likely to occur.

OTC Trade Lifecycle Overview
A practical OTC lifecycle (where friction typically shows up)
1) Trade execution (OTC): price agreed and trade captured in the EMS.
– Checkpoint: trade details are complete (instrument, size, counterparty, settlement date/time).
2) Confirmation: both sides align on the economic terms.
– Checkpoint: mismatches are resolved before any transfer is initiated.
3) Netting (if applicable): multiple trades are consolidated into fewer net settlement obligations.
– Checkpoint: netting cutoffs are clear (e.g., end-of-day vs. rolling) so obligations aren’t double-counted.
4) Settlement initiation: settlement is triggered from the trading workflow.
– Checkpoint: settlement instructions are pulled from the same source of truth (no re-keying).
5) Custody-side execution: assets move under custody controls.
– Checkpoint: custody approvals/controls remain enforced even when initiation happens in the EMS.
6) Post-settlement reconciliation: positions/limits are updated against custody records.
– Checkpoint: breaks are identified and resolved on the daily reconciliation cycle.

Automated Data Exchange and Workflow Efficiency

A core promise of the integration is workflow efficiency through automated data exchange between Finery Markets’ trading infrastructure and Fireblocks’ custody vaults.

For institutional users, the immediate operational change is straightforward: clients utilizing Fireblocks as their custody technology provider can initiate settlements directly within the Finery Markets interface. That removes two common sources of friction highlighted in the announcement:

  1. Manual data entry (which introduces operational risk and slows throughput).
  2. Switching between systems to initiate transfers (which adds time and increases the chance of process breaks).

The integration also introduces a reconciliation discipline tied to custody data. Positions and credit limits are reconciled against custody data on a daily basis “to ensure accuracy.” While the announcement does not detail the reconciliation method, the implication is that the custody layer becomes a reference point for validating trading-side exposures and limits.

This matters because credit limits and position tracking are not just reporting features in institutional trading—they are controls. If those controls are based on stale or manually updated information, institutions can end up with mismatched views of risk. Daily reconciliation against custody data is presented as a way to keep the execution environment aligned with the custody reality.

In combination, automated data exchange and daily reconciliation aim to turn post-trade from a manual, multi-system process into a more continuous workflow—one where settlement initiation, data validation, and custody actions are connected by design.

Post-Trade Automation Confirmations
Operational automation checklist (what to confirm in day-to-day use)
– Settlement initiation: can be started inside the Finery Markets interface for clients using Fireblocks custody.
– Data handoff: settlement-relevant details flow automatically between the trading environment and custody vaults (reducing re-keying).
– System switching: fewer “toggle points” between execution and custody tools during post-trade.
– Controls alignment: positions and credit limits are reconciled against custody data on a daily basis.
– Break handling: when reconciliation finds a mismatch, there is a defined path to resolve it before limits/positions are relied on for the next trading cycle.

Security and Trust in Digital Asset Transactions

Security is not treated as a generic marketing claim here; it is tied to the custody infrastructure that underpins the integrated workflow.
Finery Markets says it is using Fireblocks’ infrastructure to secure digital asset transactions across more than 150 blockchains, leveraging a platform trusted by over 2,400 organizations globally to manage more than $10 trillion in digital assets.
Those figures serve two purposes. First, they position Fireblocks as a custody and settlement layer with broad blockchain coverage—relevant for institutions that may need to support multiple networks. Second, they frame trust as adoption at scale: thousands of organizations and trillions in managed digital assets.

Just as important is the structural separation reiterated in the integration description: the workflow is “vertically integrated” while maintaining separation between trade execution and asset safety. In institutional contexts, that separation is part of trust architecture. It reduces the likelihood that a compromise or failure in one layer automatically compromises the other, and it aligns with the principle of independence referenced by Finery Markets’ CEO.

In other words, the integration is not presented as “one system to rule them all,” but as a controlled linkage between specialized layers—execution on one side, custody and settlement on the other—connected by automated data exchange and settlement initiation capabilities.

Trust / security element described What the article ties it to (verbatim or direct restatement) Why it matters operationally
Broad network coverage “across more than 150 blockchains” Reduces the need for separate custody workflows per network when supporting multiple assets.
Adoption at scale “trusted by over 2,400 organizations globally” A proxy for maturity: more production usage tends to surface edge cases and operational requirements.
Scale of assets handled “manage more than $10 trillion in digital assets” Signals that the custody layer is built for high-value institutional flows (still not a guarantee of fit for every use case).
Separation of duties “structural separation between trade execution and asset safety” Limits blast radius: execution workflow integration doesn’t imply custody controls are removed.

Benefits for Institutional Clients

For institutional clients, the integration’s benefits are framed less around new trading features and more around operational design: fewer manual steps, fewer system switches, and tighter alignment between execution workflows and custody reality.

The most tangible client-facing change is settlement initiation from within the Finery Markets interface for users who rely on Fireblocks for custody. That consolidates workflow without forcing a custody migration—an important point for institutions that have already standardized on a custody provider and built internal controls around it.

The automation of data flow between trading infrastructure and custody vaults is positioned as a way to remove manual data entry. In institutional operations, manual entry is not only slow; it is a control problem. Eliminating it reduces the chance of incorrect addresses, wrong amounts, or mismatched settlement instructions—issues that can be costly in any market, and particularly unforgiving in digital asset transfers.

Daily reconciliation of positions and credit limits against custody data is another institutional-grade feature. Credit limits are central to OTC risk management, and reconciling them against custody data is presented as a way to ensure accuracy. While the announcement does not specify whether reconciliation is intraday or end-of-day beyond “daily,” the direction is clear: reduce discrepancies between what the trading system believes and what custody records show.

Finally, the integration is designed to facilitate post-trade netting through seamless data exchange. For institutions, netting is closely tied to capital efficiency—another principle explicitly referenced by Finery Markets’ CEO. Even without published metrics, the logic is familiar: netting reduces gross settlement movements, which can reduce operational load and improve how capital is deployed across trading activity.

Potential upside for institutions What enables it in this integration Practical limits / dependencies to plan for
Faster, less error-prone settlement initiation Initiate settlements inside Finery Markets; automated data flow to custody vaults Still depends on correct upstream trade capture and agreed confirmation terms before initiation.
Fewer operational handoffs Reduced need to switch between execution and custody systems Integration reliability becomes a workflow dependency; teams need clear fallback steps if a handoff fails.
Stronger control alignment Daily reconciliation of positions and credit limits against custody data “Daily” implies a cadence; intraday changes may still require additional controls depending on trading intensity.
Lower settlement movement count (via netting) Seamless post-trade netting supported by connected execution/custody data Netting rules and cutoffs must be defined; not all counterparties or products net the same way.
Preserved separation of duties Structural separation between execution and asset safety Requires governance: who can initiate settlement vs. who can approve custody-side actions.

Future of Institutional Trading

Finery Markets’ announcement is as much a statement about market direction as it is a product update. The company’s CEO explicitly argues that “the future of institutional trading is on-chain,” but only if on-chain workflows are built within architectures that preserve institutional fundamentals: independence, capital efficiency, and netted settlements.

That framing is notable because it rejects a simplistic “on-chain equals better” narrative. Instead, it suggests that institutional adoption depends on translating established market structure into digital asset rails—keeping the controls and separations institutions expect, while modernizing the settlement and custody mechanics.

The integration also reflects a broader infrastructure trend: connecting execution management systems to custody and settlement layers in a way that reduces operational fragmentation. In OTC digital asset markets, fragmentation has often meant bespoke processes, manual handoffs, and inconsistent post-trade practices. By linking Finery Markets’ liquidity network and EMS with Fireblocks’ custody vaults and settlement layers, the combined solution is positioned as a step toward more standardized institutional workflows.

If the model proves durable, it points to an institutional stack where trading interfaces are increasingly custody-aware, settlement is initiated where execution happens, and reconciliation is built into daily operations. The goal is not to eliminate specialized providers, but to make the seams between them less visible—and less risky—through automation and tighter integration.

Signals of Operational Maturity
What to watch next (signals that the model is “sticking”)
– Whether daily reconciliation expands toward tighter (more frequent) alignment as institutions scale activity.
– How netting is operationalized in practice (cutoffs, eligible products/counterparties, and exception handling).
– How institutions formalize separation of duties: who can initiate settlement in the EMS vs. who can approve custody-side actions.

Transforming Operational Efficiency

The integration is fundamentally an operational story: connecting execution and custody layers so settlement can be initiated in one place and post-trade processes can support netting.

By automating data exchange between trading infrastructure and custody vaults, the workflow reduces manual entry and the need to toggle between systems—two common sources of delay and error in off-exchange settlement. Daily reconciliation of positions and credit limits against custody data adds a control layer that institutions recognize from traditional electronic trading operations.

Taken together, these elements aim to make OTC digital asset trading feel less like a patchwork of tools and more like an integrated institutional workflow—without collapsing execution and custody into a single risk domain.

Enhancing Security and Compliance

Security and trust are anchored in Fireblocks’ custody infrastructure, described as securing transactions across more than 150 blockchains and being trusted by over 2,400 organizations globally to manage more than $10 trillion in digital assets.

Just as significant is the architectural principle emphasized throughout: maintaining structural separation between trade execution and asset safety. That separation aligns with institutional expectations of independence and control, even as trading and settlement move toward on-chain rails.

The result is a model that tries to reconcile two demands that institutions rarely compromise on: operational efficiency and robust safeguards. In the institutional digital asset market, that balance may be the difference between experimentation and sustained adoption.

This analysis is written from an institutional-operations perspective shaped by Martin Weidemann’s work building and scaling regulated fintech and payments systems across Mexico and Latin America, where reconciliation, separation of duties, and post-trade controls are practical design constraints—not just theory.

This piece focuses on the operational and market-structure implications described in the integration announcement. Any figures on scale reflect publicly available statements at the time of writing and may change. Product capabilities may also vary by client configuration and rollout stage, and details could be updated as new information emerges.

Related Posts

Scroll to Top

Schedule a Demo

Please enter your full name.
This field is required.
Please provide your company's website if available.
This field is required.
Types of Content Interested In
Select the types of content you would like to generate.
This field is required.