Your wallet protects your keys. But who protects your decisions? Chainalysis estimates crypto scams could exceed $17B for 2025. Always follow a security protocol: Verify the website. Check the recipient. Know what you’re signing. BlockSign: Security isn’t just about keys. It’s about control.

We warned you this morning, and here is the matching incident. 🚨 OpenAI reports an agent spent Sepolia testnet funds without permission. Access is not authorization. BlockSign connects signed business approvals with policy-controlled blockchain execution. AI can propose. It must not approve itself. Authorization first. Execution follows.

BlockSign connects business authorization, documented through legally binding electronic signatures, with the controlled execution of digital-asset transactions on the blockchain. This creates a traceable link between approval and execution, supporting accountability and auditability for financial institutions, auditors and public-sector organizations, including customs authorities, tax investigation units and law-enforcement agencies, as well as other organizations managing digital assets in regulated environments. Authorization first. Blockchain execution follows.

Your next contract could start in a chat, not a dashboard. BlockSign eSign connects to @ChatGPT via MCP. AI can draft the agreement. But who has the authority to sign? Verified identity. Clear permissions. Auditable evidence. A prompt is not permission.

FOCUSSED ON CIP-113: CIP-113 Is Moving to Mainnet. Now Comes the Hard Part: Authority. Programmable assets can freeze, seize, mint, burn and restrict transfers. But who is allowed to exercise those powers? CIP-113 is entering an important new phase. The proposal has been merged into the @Cardano_CF CIP repository, implementations are advancing and the first projects are reporting deployments on Cardano Mainnet. For institutional adoption, however, this creates a new challenge. CIP-113 enables native Cardano assets to operate under programmable rules. Depending on the implementation, these can include transfer restrictions, allow- and denylists, freezing, minting, burning or third-party transfers. These are powerful capabilities. A smart contract can enforce a rule, but it can’t define who inside an organization is authorized to exercise that power. Who may initiate a freeze? Does Compliance have to approve a seizure? Can the same person prepare and authorize a mint? What happens above a certain transaction value? And how can an auditor later prove exactly who approved what? This is the difference between programmable assets and programmable authority. At BlockSign, this is where we see the next layer of institutional infrastructure. Instead of treating a blockchain transaction as one action, we separate the process: Initiate → Validate → Approve → Sign → Submit → Confirm → Evidence We are also integrating CIP-113 with our MPC/FROST architecture. Our current work includes separate MPC-controlled payment and staking credentials, so no individual guardian needs to possess a complete private key. This matters because institutional digital-asset security is not only about protecting keys. It is about controlling authority. Our CIP-113 work on Cardano Preview has already covered registration, minting, transfer and burning. The next step is building the governance and authorization infrastructure around these operations. As CIP-113 moves closer to real-world institutional use, the question therefore changes. It is no longer only: What can the asset do? It is also: Who is allowed to make it happen? CIP-113 makes the asset programmable. BlockSign makes its operation governable.

Five BlockSign products. One trust infrastructure. All live today, except custody within Asset Operations, which still awaits audit & insurance. It all started with a platform for legally binding electronic signatures (QES). Look where we are now… See what's running ➡️ @BlockSign_io

Real World Impact is what we are working on 24/7.

CIP-113 has been merged into the Cardano CIP repository. A major milestone but from our commercial perspective at BlockSign, this is where the next interesting work begins. CIP-113 can make Cardano native assets programmable, enabling rules around transfers, ownership and issuer controls that are essential for stablecoins, RWAs and other institutional assets. We’ve already tested a complete CIP-113 lifecycle on Cardano Preview: registration, minting, transfer and burn. Now we’re working on the next layer: institutional operation. Because a programmable asset still needs answers to very traditional questions: - Who can initiate a transaction? - Who must approve it? - What exactly was approved? - Who can authorize the wallet? - And how can all of this be proven afterwards? Our next step goes even deeper into the wallet architecture. In the CIP-113 implementation we’re integrating, the staking credential plays a key role in ownership. We’re therefore working on separate MPC/FROST-controlled payment and staking credentials, without any guardian holding a complete private key. CIP-113 makes the asset programmable. BlockSign is working on making its operation governable. Encouraging to see @AnvilDevAgency, @FluidTokens, @MinswapDEX, @liqwidfinance, @GeroWallet, @Cardano_CF and others working on commercial CIP-113 adoption.

CIP-113 is moving from specification to operations. And that’s where things get interesting. At BlockSign, we have now successfully executed a governed programmable-token lifecycle on Cardano Preview: → Registration + initial mint → Separate mint → Wallet-to-wallet transfer → Burn All confirmed on-chain. But making a transaction work is only half the challenge. Institutional operations need to answer different questions: - Who is allowed to initiate it? - Who must approve it? - What exactly was approved? - Can the transaction change after approval? - Who can execute it? - And can all of this be proven afterwards? That’s why BlockSign separates: Intent → Build → Validate → Approve → Execute → Confirm → Evidence ❗️Changing the transaction means changing the approval.❗️ This week, CIP-113 builders are meeting to discuss improvements to the emerging infrastructure. Our testing is already producing concrete operational learnings around governance, transaction flows and the requirements for using programmable tokens in real-world environments. The next step is bigger than minting tokens. It’s making programmable assets operationally ready for institutions. @planetmaaz @michaeldotada @Cardano

Shamir or FROST? The right architecture depends on how you use your assets. Over the last posts, we looked at two approaches to distributed key management: Shamir Secret Sharing and FROST threshold signatures. Both can remove dependency on a single keyholder. But they solve different operational problems. Shamir is fundamentally simple to understand: split a secret into several shares and define a threshold — for example, 3-of-5. When recovery is required, enough shares are combined and the original secret can be reconstructed. That makes Shamir particularly interesting when the main objective is secure backup and recovery. A single asset owner can even distribute their shares across separate secure locations. The trade-off comes when the key needs to be used. Once the threshold is reached, the complete secret can exist again during reconstruction. The reconstruction environment therefore becomes part of the security model. FROST approaches everyday operation differently. Again, participants hold shares of a common signing key and a threshold can be defined. But during normal signing, the required participants cooperate to create signature shares. Those are combined into one valid Schnorr signature — without reconstructing the complete signing key. That makes FROST particularly interesting when distributed control is required not only for recovery, but for regular transaction signing. So which is better? There is no universal answer. For an individual investor or single high-value trader, Shamir can offer an understandable way to distribute recovery material and avoid keeping one complete secret in one location. For a family office or small organization, the decision increasingly depends on operational requirements. Is distributed control primarily needed for disaster recovery, or should several people participate every time important assets are moved? For SMEs, institutions and professional asset operations, FROST can become particularly interesting where multiple authorized participants should jointly sign transactions without reconstructing the complete signing key during normal operation. And there are more questions than security alone: - How easy is the initial setup? - How does recovery work? - How convenient is everyday signing? - What happens when a participant leaves? - How are shares replaced or refreshed? - What happens if participants are unavailable? - Which blockchains and signature schemes are supported? - And how does the cryptographic threshold connect to the organization’s actual governance? That last question is crucial. A 3-of-5 cryptographic threshold does not automatically tell you who is allowed to initiate a €5 million transaction, which assets they may move, which addresses are permitted or what transaction limits apply. That is governance. With BlockSign, organizations can choose a key-management architecture that fits their operational and security requirements and combine it with roles, approvals, policies, transaction limits and audit evidence. Shamir distributes the secret. FROST distributes the signing process. BlockSign adds the governance around it. Not sure which architecture fits your digital asset operations? Talk to us.