Shane Ian Murphy on Triparty Tokenisation: Why Custody Handovers Need a Clear Record

A handover is often treated as a moment: one party passes responsibility to another, and the process moves on. I tend to think of it as a sequence of questions. What was received? In what condition? Under which authority? Who accepted it, and what evidence supports that acceptance? As cofounder of Triparty Tokenisation, I believe those questions deserve attention whenever a digital representation depends on an asset being held, controlled or administered somewhere outside the token record itself.

My interest is in the boundaries between responsibilities. A token balance might be straightforward to inspect, while the underlying custody arrangement involves several organisations and different kinds of evidence. One party may hold an item, another may maintain records, and another may be responsible for checking information. Those roles should be explained separately. I would not want a participant to assume that a technology provider physically holds an asset merely because its software displays information about that asset.

Before designing a handover process, I would identify the object of the handover. Sometimes that might be physical possession; in another arrangement it could be control of records, access to an account, or an administrative responsibility. The details would depend on the structure. A shared word such as custody can obscure those differences. My proposed approach is to describe the actual action, the relevant authority and the expected evidence, then use terminology that matches the work being performed.

The next step would be defining acceptance. An outgoing party’s statement that it has completed a transfer is not necessarily the same as the receiving party confirming receipt. I would want those events distinguished, with a way to record pending status and unresolved differences. This is especially important when a process crosses organisational boundaries. People should be able to tell whether a handover is complete, awaiting confirmation or disputed, without having to reconstruct the answer from a long email exchange.

Exceptions are where a useful process earns its place. Suppose a receiving party finds that an identifier does not match the accompanying record. The appropriate response might be to pause, request further evidence or involve an authorised decision maker. It should not be to force the event into a completed status because the system offers no alternative. I favour designing an exception route alongside the ordinary route, including responsibility for follow up and a visible record of the eventual resolution.

Evidence also needs context. A document, image or reference number is helpful only if people understand what it supports and where its limitations lie. I would want records to identify their source and relevant time, while distinguishing reported information from independently checked information. That does not require every detail to be public. It requires a thoughtful decision about which participants need access, what can be disclosed, and how sensitive information is handled within the arrangements that have been agreed.

At Triparty Tokenisation, these are principles I want to bring into the design discussion, rather than assertions about a completed custody service or any particular transaction. I am writing as a founder with a proposed approach. The important outcome would be an understandable chain of responsibility, including what happens when a provider changes or a relationship ends. Continuity should be considered at the beginning, because the need to move records or responsibilities rarely arrives at a convenient moment. Even a modest handover benefits from knowing who should answer a question after the original contact has moved on.

A custody handover should leave the next person better informed, not simply leave the previous person finished. That is the standard I find useful. Digital records can make responsibility easier to follow when the process behind them is well defined. They cannot supply missing acceptance, authority or evidence by themselves. I want our work to respect that boundary and make it visible to participants. Company information is available at https://www.tripartytokenisation.com/ . My own background and further writing are at https://shanemurphy.co.uk/ .