Institution record
Uphold wallet
- Source score
- 2.0
- Warnings
- 0
- Comments
- 0
Licence records
Licences within our coverage (firms authorised in the uk, ireland and gibraltar) are listed first. Check each one on the regulator's own register.
| Regulator | Licence no. | Status | Licensed entity | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In our coverage Financial Conduct Authority | 09281410 | Regulated | Uphold Europe Limited | — | |
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) | 12‐1269875 | Regulated | Uphold HQ Inc. | — | |
Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS) Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS) | 305967101 | Regulated | Uphold Lithuania UAB | 2023 | |
MSC The Manitoba Securities Commission | Not supplied | Regulated | Uphold Inc. | 2023‐03‐27 |
Peer regulatory & risk comparison
Side-by-side supervisory and risk benchmark comparing Uphold wallet against peer institutions in our firms authorised in the uk, ireland and gibraltar dataset.
| Institution | Primary regulators | Regulated / total | Risk classification | Source score | Warnings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uphold wallet (this record) | Financial Conduct AuthorityFinancial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS)+1 | 4 / 4 | Risk level not supplied | 2.0 | 0 |
| Coinbase | CBIFinancial Conduct AuthorityCBI+6 | 9 / 9 | Risk level not supplied | 8.5 | 1 |
| Kraken | CBIFinancial Conduct Authority (UK FCA)CBI+2 | 5 / 5 | Risk level not supplied | 7.7 | 0 |
| CMCMarkets | Financial Conduct AuthorityFinancial Conduct AuthorityIIROC+3 | 5 / 6 | Risk level not supplied | 7.1 | 0 |
| XTX Markets | Financial Conduct AuthorityFinancial Conduct AuthorityU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)+1 | 4 / 4 | Risk level not supplied | 6.0 | 0 |
| CEX.IO | GFSCFinancial Conduct AuthorityFinancial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)+1 | 2 / 4 | Risk level not supplied | 5.0 | 0 |
Uphold wallet: institutional due diligence FAQ
Key supervisory, licensing, and counterparty verification questions generated from the dataset.
What is Uphold wallet's regulatory licence status and supervisory authorisation?
In our imported dataset, Uphold wallet (legal entity reference: Uphold wallet) holds 4 recorded licence entries, of which 4 carry a "regulated" status and 4 are marked regulated or registered: Financial Conduct Authority — licence 09281410, status: regulated; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) — licence 12‐1269875, status: regulated; Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS) — licence 305967101, status: regulated; MSC (The Manitoba Securities Commission) — licence Not supplied, status: regulated. Institutional due diligence requires verifying that the exact legal entity on your counterparty agreement matches the licensed entity name and registration number on the official Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS) public register.
Which of Uphold wallet's jurisdictions and licences fall within this site's regulatory coverage?
This directory focuses on firms authorised in the uk, ireland and gibraltar. 1 of Uphold wallet's 4 licence records fall directly within this jurisdictional mandate: Financial Conduct Authority (licence 09281410, regulated, entity: Uphold Europe Limited). Always confirm whether client money segregation and statutory investor compensation schemes apply to the specific subsidiary onboarding your account.
What is Uphold wallet's institutional risk classification, enforcement exposure, and score profile?
Uphold wallet carries a "risk level not supplied" classification in the source dataset, alongside composite 5-dimension ratings out of 10 (overall: 2.0, risk & licensing: 2.0, brand: 2.0, market influence: 2.0, user reputation: 0.0). The record flags 0 regulatory warning or complaint counts. Because these figures reflect imported source fields rather than primary audit findings, compliance teams should review primary enforcement bulletins directly.
What operational due diligence steps apply to Uphold wallet's platforms, entity structure, and complaints?
Before allocating capital or executing trades with Uphold wallet, institutional and retail allocators should: (1) confirm the domain (uphold.com) against regulator-approved domains to guard against clone firms; (2) verify whether any of the 0 recorded warning/complaint entries or 0 user comments involve withdrawal restrictions or scope violations; and (3) confirm the dispute-resolution ombudsman tied to Financial Conduct Authority.
Related institutional research & regulatory analysis
Editorial briefings and compliance research from QuantCalc Tools relevant to Uphold wallet's supervisory scope.
Markets
Thursday’s Nasdaq drop and Friday’s flat tape: what can be measured before the close
Thursday’s Nasdaq decline is a completed print. Friday’s US indexes were still trading on Friday afternoon in New York. Mixing the two is how a desk invents a close that has not happened.
Fixed Income Duration, Convexity & Risk Models
Quantifying the October 2026 Treasury Flash Rally: 10-Year -19 bps Safe-Haven Shock, 30-Year 5.55% Term Premium Physics, and Portfolio Convexity/VaR Recalibration
Institutional quantitative analysis of the October 23, 2026 US Treasury flash rally: 10-year yields plunging -19.2 bps to 4.95% against sticky 5.55% 30-year long bonds, Adrian-Crump-Moench term premium decomposition under $114 Brent crude, MBS convexity hedging cascades, and FICC GSD VaR margin recalibration.
Quantitative Risk & Capital Modeling
Basel III Endgame FRTB & ISDA SIMM v2.6+ Quantitative Calibration: Expected Shortfall, Non-Modellable Risk Factors (NMRF), and Cross-Margin Capital Optimization (2026)
Complete quantitative specification of BCBS MAR20-MAR33 Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB), 97.5% Expected Shortfall liquidity horizon scaling, Risk Factor Eligibility Tests (RFET), SA-CCR alpha factors, and ISDA SIMM initial margin optimization.
Quantitative Execution & Fee Math
CME SPAN 2 Historical VaR Margin Methodology, Cross-Margining Haircuts & Portfolio Kelly Criterion Optimization
CME SPAN 2 Historical Value-at-Risk (HVaR) margin methodology refers to an institutional clearing risk framework that replaces legacy 16-scenario parametric grid arrays with a 99.0% confidence Filtered Historical Simulation (FHS) engine incorporating exponentially weighted volatility scaling and stress-period tail scenarios. Across multi-asset fixed-income and equity index derivatives portfolios, integrating CME–FICC cross-margining offsets with variance-penalized multi-asset Kelly Criterion sizing reduces initial margin encumbrance by up to 75.0% [75.0%, CME Group Clearing & FICC Cross-Margining Benchmark, Q1 2026] while compressing annualized collateral drag by 142 bps [142 bps, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Reference Rate & Treasury Repo Study, February 2026].