The Bitcoin Holder's Guide to Non-Custodial Lending

A practical framework for evaluating Bitcoin credit in 2026

Published by Cadena Bitcoin · 2026 Edition

Executive Summary

The Bitcoin lending market has been rebuilt from the ground up since the 2022 collapse. Over $2 billion in customer Bitcoin was lost across FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, and Voyager — not because of bad actors alone, but because the underlying structure was wrong. Every platform that failed had one thing in common: they held customer keys.

This guide is for Bitcoin holders who want to participate in lending markets without recreating the structural risks Bitcoin was specifically designed to eliminate. It covers what changed, what the alternatives are, and how to evaluate any Bitcoin credit product against a structurally sound framework.

Key findings:

• Custodial Bitcoin lending failed structurally — not just because of bad management. The model is wrong for Bitcoin.

• Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs) on Bitcoin's base layer enable lending where both parties keep self-custody throughout. The technology was research-stage in 2017; it's production-deployed in 2026.

• A non-custodial Cadena contract settled successfully on Bitcoin's mainnet on May 9, 2026 — verifiable on-chain, with all proceeds delivered exactly as the pre-signed contract specified.

• The right framework for evaluating any Bitcoin credit product reduces to three structural questions: Who holds the keys? How is settlement enforced? What is the legal and regulatory posture?

This guide gives you the tools to answer those questions and the implementation framework to act on the answers.

Chapter 1: The Bitcoin Lending Landscape

How we got here

Bitcoin lending started simply. Holders wanted yield on their Bitcoin without selling. Platforms emerged offering 6-12% annual returns on Bitcoin deposits — packaged in a familiar bank-like wrapper. Deposit Bitcoin, earn interest, withdraw on demand.

The market grew explosively between 2019 and 2022. BlockFi, Celsius, Voyager, and others attracted billions in deposits. They positioned themselves as "crypto banks" — providing familiar financial services to a Bitcoin-curious audience. To most users, the model felt like Bitcoin had finally been integrated into a workable financial system.

It hadn't been. It had been swallowed by one.

The 2022 reset

When market conditions tightened in 2022, the structural weaknesses came due. The collapses were spectacular and sequential:

• FTX/Alameda Research used customer Bitcoin for proprietary trading. When trades failed, customer assets failed with them. Estimated recovery: 10-20% of deposits.

• Celsius Network promised unsustainable yields by deploying user funds into illiquid DeFi positions. When liquidity dried up, withdrawals were frozen. Estimated recovery: 15-30%.

• BlockFi had massive exposure to FTX and Alameda. When those counterparties failed, BlockFi was insolvent. Estimated recovery: 20-30%.

• Voyager Digital made unsecured loans to other failing crypto firms. When those firms collapsed, Voyager did too. Estimated recovery: 25-35%.

The common thread wasn't bad management alone. It was that every one of these platforms was structurally identical: they took custody of customer Bitcoin, commingled it with operational funds, and used it for activities the customer never explicitly authorized. When something went wrong, customers became unsecured creditors in bankruptcy court.

The total addressable damage was over $2 billion — and the lesson for Bitcoin holders should be permanent.

What the market looks like now

The lending market has restructured:

• Custodial platforms are still operating but at a fraction of pre-2022 volume. The remaining players have tightened diligence, added insurance, and improved transparency. The structural risk — custody of customer keys — remains.

• Non-custodial Bitcoin credit has emerged as a categorically different model. Built on Bitcoin's base layer via Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs), it allows lending without surrendering custody at any point. Volume in this segment has grown from research-stage in 2022 to production deployments in 2026.

• Wrapped-token DeFi (e.g., wBTC on Ethereum) offers yield on Bitcoin proxies but reintroduces a different set of custody risks — typically a custodian holds the underlying Bitcoin while users hold a token claim. The 2022 lesson applies.

Bitcoin holders now have a real choice between models. The rest of this guide is about how to make that choice well.

The custody question is the entire framework

Every other question about Bitcoin lending — yield, term, fees, counterparty — sits downstream of one structural question: Who controls the private keys during the contract?

If the answer is "the platform," the structural risks of the 2022 collapse are present in some form. If the answer is "I do, throughout," the structural risks are eliminated by design.

Everything that follows in this guide is built on that distinction.

Chapter 2: Why Custodial Lending Failed Structurally

The mechanics of custodial Bitcoin lending

Custodial Bitcoin lending operates on a familiar banking model:

• Deposit. You transfer Bitcoin to platform-controlled addresses. The platform now has unilateral control of those funds.

• Custody. The platform holds the private keys and decides how the Bitcoin is used.

• Lending. The platform lends the Bitcoin to borrowers, deploys it in yield strategies, or uses it for its own operations — typically without specific user disclosure.

• Yield. The platform pays you interest, often funded from the spread between what they earn on the deployed Bitcoin and what they pay you.

• Withdrawal. You request withdrawals subject to platform policies — which can include freezes, limits, fees, and delays.

This model appears simple and familiar, but it fundamentally transforms what you own. When you deposit Bitcoin on a custodial platform, you no longer own Bitcoin. You own a claim to Bitcoin — an IOU on the platform's balance sheet.

The paper Bitcoin problem

Bitcoin's value comes from properties that "paper Bitcoin" cannot replicate:

• Censorship resistance. Real Bitcoin can be moved or spent without permission. Paper Bitcoin can be frozen, blocked, or seized by the platform.

• Verifiability. Real Bitcoin's existence is provable on-chain. Paper Bitcoin is an accounting entry on the platform's books — you cannot verify it without the platform's cooperation.

• Programmability. Real Bitcoin can be used in smart contracts, multisig structures, and other Bitcoin-native applications. Paper Bitcoin cannot.

• Portability. Real Bitcoin moves at the speed of the Bitcoin network. Paper Bitcoin moves at the platform's discretion.

When you give up custody, you give up these properties. What you have left is a financial claim against a counterparty.

Common failure patterns across the 2022 collapses

Looking across the four major collapses, consistent structural patterns emerge:

• Fractional reserves. Platforms did not hold enough Bitcoin to cover all customer claims. When all customers wanted to withdraw at once, the math didn't work.

• Hidden investment activity. Customer Bitcoin was deployed in high-risk strategies — proprietary trading, DeFi yield farming, unsecured loans — typically without explicit customer authorization.

• Interconnected exposures. Platforms had counterparty exposure to each other. When one failed, the others followed.

• Liquidity mismatches. Customers expected on-demand withdrawal. Platforms funded long-term, illiquid positions with these short-term liabilities.

• Regulatory ambiguity. Some platforms had partial regulatory approval, which gave customers false confidence but did not actually protect deposits.

None of these are problems of bad actors specifically. They are structural problems with the custodial Bitcoin lending model itself. Even a well-managed custodial platform with no bad intent is exposed to all five of these risks by design.

The hidden costs you don't see in the rate

Custodial platforms typically quote a single number: the annual percentage yield. The hidden costs are:

• Counterparty risk. The platform could fail. Recovery rates in the 2022 collapses were 10-35% of original deposits.

• Liquidity risk. Withdrawals can be frozen, delayed, or limited. During the BlockFi freeze in 2022, customers couldn't access Bitcoin while the price moved from ~$20K to ~$40K — a 100% opportunity cost on top of any direct loss.

• Regulatory risk. The platform can be shut down by regulators. Customer access depends on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the wind-down.

• Tax complexity. Each platform interaction can create taxable events depending on jurisdiction.

• Opportunity cost on Bitcoin's programmability. Bitcoin held on a custodial platform cannot be used in other Bitcoin-native applications during the deposit period.

Net the hidden costs against the headline rate and the comparison with non-custodial alternatives becomes much sharper.

Why "well-regulated" custodial lending is not a solution

A natural reaction to the 2022 collapses is to push for better regulation of custodial platforms. This is helpful but does not solve the structural problem.

A well-regulated custodial platform still holds your keys. Better regulation means better disclosure, better risk controls, and faster recoveries when failures happen. It does not change the fundamental fact that you have a counterparty between you and your Bitcoin.

Bitcoin was specifically designed to remove the need for a counterparty in monetary transactions. A model that re-inserts a counterparty is, by definition, a step backward from Bitcoin's design.

Chapter 3: Non-Custodial Bitcoin Credit — How It Actually Works

The structural principles

Non-custodial Bitcoin credit operates on principles that map directly onto Bitcoin's design:

• Self-custody throughout. Each party holds their own keys at all times. No third party can move, freeze, or seize Bitcoin.

• Self-enforcing contracts. The contract executes itself on Bitcoin's base layer via cryptographic primitives, not via a platform's discretion.

• Pre-signed outcomes. Every possible settlement is determined and signed before any Bitcoin moves. There is no settlement-period flexibility for either party — or for any intermediary.

• On-chain verifiability. Every contract leaves a verifiable trail on Bitcoin's mainnet. The contract is its own audit trail.

• No pooling. Each contract is its own atomic on-chain structure. No commingling, no rehypothecation, no fractional reserves.

These principles aren't aspirational; they are mechanically enforced by Bitcoin's base layer.

Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs): the underlying technology

Discreet Log Contracts are Bitcoin's native primitive for trust-minimized financial agreements. The construction was first formalized by Tadge Dryja in 2017 and has matured through significant academic and engineering work since.

A DLC works as follows:

1. Contract specification. Lender and borrower agree on the terms — size, term, LTV, oracle source, settlement date. The terms are deterministic and finite.

2. Pre-signed outcomes. Before any Bitcoin moves, both parties sign a transaction for every possible settlement outcome. If the oracle could attest to any of, say, a thousand possible BTC/USD prices at maturity, then a thousand pre-signed transactions exist before funding.

3. Funding. Both parties commit Bitcoin to the contract pool in a single on-chain transaction. The lender's principal and the borrower's collateral go into the same Discreet Log Contract simultaneously. Neither party can withdraw unilaterally.

4. Term runs. The contract is locked. No margin calls. No in-term liquidations. No party — including Cadena — can move the other's Bitcoin during the term.

5. Maturity. At the contract's settlement date, the oracle attests to the BTC/USD price. The single pre-signed transaction matching that price broadcasts on-chain automatically. The lender's USD-denominated target is paid in Bitcoin at the maturity price. The borrower receives the residual back to self-custody.

The genius is in the pre-signing. Because every outcome is signed before any Bitcoin moves, the contract is mathematically determined before it begins. Neither party can refuse to settle. Neither can manipulate the outcome. The oracle doesn't authorize — it just selects which pre-signed transaction broadcasts.

Synthetic exposure: the mechanic most prospects get wrong

Here's the structural detail that separates Cadena from the CeFi mental model most people carry into the conversation.

The CeFi mental model: borrower locks BTC, lender wires dollars, platform holds escrow, borrower wires back at maturity.

A non-custodial Bitcoin contract doesn't work that way.

Both the lender's principal and the borrower's collateral are committed Bitcoin, locked in the same DLC. The borrower doesn't receive the lender's Bitcoin. The lender's Bitcoin stays locked.

What the borrower receives is synthetic Bitcoin exposure — a pre-signed on-chain claim against the collateral pool, payable at maturity per the oracle's BTC/USD attestation.

With that synthetic in hand, the borrower sells Bitcoin from outside the contract on their own exchange or OTC desk for the dollars they need.

Cash in hand. Original Bitcoin position preserved through the locked collateral.

The locked collateral is what brings the Bitcoin back at maturity. Without the locked collateral, the BTC the borrower sold for cash is permanently gone. The contract reconstructs the borrower's Bitcoin position over the term, while giving them dollar liquidity to use today.

This is the architectural difference. The borrower needs to hold Bitcoin in two places to use a Cadena contract — the collateral inside the contract, and the off-ramp Bitcoin they sell themselves. The contract preserves the first; the off-ramp generates the cash.

It is a structural property, not a bug. It is why the contract can work non-custodially at all.

The oracle question

Every settlement event in a DLC depends on an oracle: a trusted source of external data (in this case, BTC/USD price at maturity) that attests to a specific value, which then selects the matching pre-signed transaction.

The oracle is a real attack surface. If the oracle is compromised or wrong, the contract settles at the wrong price.

The right framework for oracle quality:

• Reputability. Is the oracle operated by a known, technically credible team?

• Decentralization. Does settlement depend on a single oracle, or is there redundancy?

• Cryptographic commitments. Has the oracle pre-committed to a public key, so its eventual attestation is verifiable?

• History. Has the oracle attested to prior contracts successfully?

The mainstream Bitcoin DLC oracle today is the DLCP Oracle, which has handled production contracts including Cadena's. Other oracle networks are emerging; the comparative landscape will mature over the next few years.

What this gives you

Putting it together: non-custodial Bitcoin credit via DLCs gives you a financial primitive with these properties:

• ✓ You keep your keys throughout the contract.
• ✓ The contract is enforced by Bitcoin script — no platform discretion.
• ✓ No margin calls during the term. Settlement is a single event at maturity.
• ✓ No rehypothecation. Your Bitcoin sits in a unique on-chain pool, not commingled with anyone else's.
• ✓ Fully verifiable. Every contract leaves a public on-chain trail.
• ✓ Bitcoin-native. The architecture uses Bitcoin's base layer, not a sidechain, not a wrapped token.

These properties are not marketing claims. They are structural consequences of how DLCs work.

Chapter 4: Proof of Concept — The May 9, 2026 Mainnet Settlement

What happened

On November 10, 2025, two parties committed Bitcoin to a Cadena DLC. The contract:

• Term: 6 months
• Reference price: $80,000 BTC at funding
• LTV: 50% (the standard Cadena product structure)
• Oracle: DLCP Oracle for BTC/USD settlement
• Structure: Both parties committed Bitcoin to the same on-chain DLC pool; every settlement outcome was pre-signed at funding

The lender was Kevin Bell — founder of Cadena Bitcoin — funding the contract as part of demonstrating the architecture on real money on Bitcoin's mainnet. The borrower was a separate counterparty.

On May 9, 2026, at the contract's pre-specified settlement timestamp, the DLCP Oracle attested to the BTC/USD price. The single pre-signed Contract Execution Transaction matching that price broadcast on-chain automatically. The lender received the USD-denominated target paid in Bitcoin at the maturity price. The borrower received the residual back to self-custody.

Verify on-chain: mempool.space/tx/95bf1377…9e5aab7d

Bitcoin's price moved over the term. The pre-signed structure delivered the contractual outcome exactly — the lender received more sats at settlement than the opening BTC contribution would have implied, exactly as the contract was designed.

Why this matters more than a deck

There is a meaningful difference between claiming an architecture works and demonstrating it works on Bitcoin's mainnet with real money.

A deck can be wrong. A testnet can be wrong. A theoretical model can be wrong.

A settled mainnet contract — pre-signed at funding, executing automatically at maturity, with every Bitcoin movement publicly verifiable — cannot be wrong. The contract did exactly what it said it would do.

This is the diligence artifact that matters for any sophisticated counterparty evaluating Cadena.

What this does not prove

Honest framing: a single settled contract does not prove that Cadena can scale, that the team can run a $1B book, or that the regulatory and operational posture is robust under stress. Those are real questions that require additional diligence.

What it does prove is that the architecture is real. The DLC mechanic, the pre-signed CETs, the oracle attestation, the on-chain settlement — all of it works as designed when deployed on Bitcoin's mainnet with real money. The base case is settled.

Every operational and scale question downstream of that base case is now a question about execution. Those questions are answerable through additional diligence. The structural question is not.

Chapter 5: Risk Assessment Framework

All financial activities involve risk. Non-custodial Bitcoin credit eliminates some risks structurally and surfaces others honestly. The framework below applies to evaluating any Bitcoin credit product — Cadena's, a custodial alternative, or a DeFi pool.

The five risk categories

1. Custody risk — Who controls the keys during the contract?

• High risk: Platform holds your keys, with discretion over how the Bitcoin is used.
• Medium risk: Segregated custody arrangement with audit-able controls.
• Low risk: You hold your keys throughout. The contract is enforced on-chain.

Non-custodial Bitcoin credit via DLCs is structurally in the "low risk" category.

2. Counterparty risk — What happens if the other party fails to meet their obligations?

• High risk: Bilateral contracts with no enforcement mechanism beyond legal recourse.
• Medium risk: Platform intermediation with some collateral discipline.
• Low risk: Cryptographic enforcement at the protocol level. The contract executes itself regardless of party behavior.

A DLC eliminates counterparty discretion at maturity. Neither party can refuse to settle. The pre-signed CET broadcasts whether or not either party cooperates.

3. Technical risk — How mature is the architecture? Has the code been reviewed?

• High risk: Novel smart contracts on chains with limited audit history.
• Medium risk: Established protocols with audit history but limited mainnet exposure.
• Low risk: Bitcoin-native primitives (DLCs use Bitcoin script, the most-audited code in cryptocurrency). Open-source signer infrastructure available for review.

Cadena's Signer App is open-source. The DLC primitive itself uses well-studied Bitcoin script with no novel-contract attack surface.

4. Regulatory risk — What is the regulatory posture, and what changes if regulations evolve?

• High risk: Unclear regulatory status; history of compliance violations; concentration in a single hostile jurisdiction.
• Medium risk: Some regulatory clarity in some jurisdictions; partial compliance.
• Low risk: Specific regulatory registration in a Bitcoin-friendly jurisdiction; on-device KYC architecture; no dependence on any single regulatory regime for survival.

Cadena Bitcoin S.A. de C.V. is a registered Bitcoin Service Provider in El Salvador. KYC is mandatory and runs on-device through Sumsub via the open-sourced Signer App.

5. Operational risk — Can the system handle the size, the pace, and the operational stress of real institutional use?

• High risk: Limited team, limited operational history, no demonstrated settlement on mainnet.
• Medium risk: Demonstrated capability at small scale; growing pipeline.
• Low risk: Mainnet-verified settlement, professional team, institutional documentation available.

Cadena has a mainnet-verified settlement (May 9, 2026) and institutional term sheets in market for $1M to $3M+ facilities.

Specific questions to ask any Bitcoin credit product

Before committing Bitcoin to any contract, ask:

• Who holds the private keys during the term?
• Where is the settlement transaction recorded? Can I verify it on-chain?
• What is the pre-signed structure? When are outcomes determined?
• Is there a margin call mechanic in the term? Under what conditions?
• What is the regulatory posture of the operating entity?
• How is identity verification handled? On-device or via the platform?
• Can I review the signing infrastructure code?
• Has the architecture executed correctly on Bitcoin's mainnet with real money?

If a Bitcoin credit product cannot answer all eight questions clearly and structurally, it is structurally weaker than a product that can. Apply this framework to Cadena, to any custodial alternative, and to any DeFi pool you might consider.

Red flags worth taking seriously

• Promises of guaranteed returns with no disclosed risk.
• Refusal to specify on-chain verifiability or settlement transaction visibility.
• "Insurance fund" framing without legal specifics about what's insured and by whom.
• Custody arrangements that require the platform to hold keys, even temporarily.
• Withdrawal restrictions, lock-up clauses, or "emergency" pause mechanisms.
• KYC processes that require sending identity documents directly to the platform (rather than to a third-party verifier like Sumsub).
• Yield rates significantly higher than current market without disclosed source of yield.
• History of regulatory violations or freezes.

The 2022 collapses checked many of these boxes simultaneously. The pattern repeats.

Chapter 6: Practical Implementation

Getting started — a measured approach

Whether you're a first-time Bitcoin lender or institutional allocator, the right approach is the same: start small, learn the mechanics, then scale.

Phase 1: Education (Week 1)

• Read this guide end to end.
• Read the Cadena whitepaper at cadenabitcoin.com.
• Verify the May 9, 2026 settlement transaction on-chain.
• Understand the synthetic exposure mechanic — re-read Chapter 3 if it's still unclear.
• Make sure you can answer the eight diligence questions in Chapter 5 about any product you're considering.

Phase 2: Technical Preparation (Week 2)

• Decide on hardware wallet or signing infrastructure.
• Verify you can transact independently with Bitcoin (send and receive small amounts to your own addresses).
• Download the Cadena Signer App and review its code if you're technically inclined.
• Complete Sumsub KYC on-device. The flow takes under 10 minutes.

Phase 3: First Contract (Week 3)

• Start with a small contract — the minimum on the Cadena platform is $1,000.
• For lenders: commit BTC equal to the loan principal you want to deploy.
• For borrowers: commit BTC as collateral, and separately sell BTC from outside the contract for the cash you need (the synthetic exposure mechanic).
• Verify the funding transaction on-chain.
• Hold the contract through term. Verify the settlement transaction at maturity.

Phase 4: Scale (Months 2+)

• Based on the first contract experience, scale to larger sizes.
• Diversify across multiple contracts with staggered maturities.
• Consider both sides of the book — lender for yield, borrower for liquidity needs.
• Track performance against expectations.

Position sizing for Bitcoin holders

A reasonable starting framework:

• Never deploy more Bitcoin to credit contracts than you can afford to have locked through the contract term. Liquidity is the first consideration; yield is secondary.
• Diversify across terms and counterparties. Stagger 90-day, 6-month, and 1-year contracts to maintain rolling liquidity.
• Hold an emergency reserve outside of all credit contracts. Cold-stored Bitcoin that's immediately accessible for unexpected needs.
• Keep some Bitcoin in pure self-custody, never in any contract. Bitcoin's full programmability requires holding the actual asset, not a contract claim on it.

Tax considerations

Tax treatment of Bitcoin lending varies significantly by jurisdiction. As a Bitcoin holder, you should:

• Track every transaction (contract funding, contract settlement, off-ramp sales) with timestamps and on-chain references.
• Understand whether your jurisdiction treats the commitment of Bitcoin to a DLC as a taxable event or not.
• Maintain documentation for any synthetic exposure and corresponding off-ramp sales, since those are separate transactions for tax purposes.
• Consult a tax professional with Bitcoin-specific experience before deploying significant capital.

This guide does not constitute tax advice.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Overallocation. Putting too much Bitcoin into credit contracts and leaving insufficient liquidity for life.
• Insufficient diligence. Skipping the eight-question framework in Chapter 5 because a platform looks polished.
• Confusing the contract Bitcoin with the off-ramp Bitcoin. For borrowers, the contract preserves your position via the locked collateral; the off-ramp Bitcoin is a separate sale that you make outside the contract. These are distinct flows.
• Ignoring the regulatory and tax posture of your jurisdiction.
• Trusting marketing copy over on-chain proof. A real contract executing correctly on mainnet is the only proof that matters.

Chapter 7: What's Next — Why Bitcoin Specifically

The wider thesis

The structural argument for non-custodial Bitcoin credit doesn't stop at lending mechanics. It connects to a larger thesis about Bitcoin's role in the global monetary system.

Bitcoin is the soundest money in human history, but it has been an incomplete monetary system since 2009 because the credit function was missing.

A monetary asset without credit is hoarding. A credit system without sound money is the global sovereign debt structure that is approaching its endgame in the late 2020s.

The chains that aren't Bitcoin can't carry the same thesis:

• Wrapped tokens reintroduce the very custody risk Bitcoin was designed to eliminate.
• Smart-contract platforms reintroduce the centralization Bitcoin was designed to bypass.
• Stablecoins reimport the monetary unit Bitcoin was designed to escape.

The credit function on Bitcoin specifically — built on Bitcoin's base layer, enforced by Bitcoin script, denominated in Bitcoin or in dollars that settle in Bitcoin — is the missing piece. Non-custodial DLC architecture is the structural mechanism by which that credit function can finally clear without reintroducing the failure modes of the previous cycle.

Endgame: Bitcoin, Sovereign Debt, and the Return of Sound Capital

The full thesis is the subject of a book — Endgame — that Cadena's founder, Kevin Bell, CFA, completed in mid-2026. The manuscript is locked and currently going to endorsers ahead of public launch.

Topics covered include:

• The structural degradation of the traditional risk-free rate as global sovereign debt approaches maturity walls
• The synthetic risk-free rate on Bitcoin — how a Bitcoin-native credit market can produce a USD-denominated yield curve that bypasses sovereign debt entirely
• The Time Value of Money reframed for sound-money holders
• The fiduciary advisor's conflict when advising on a deflationary monetary asset
• Why the credit function on Bitcoin specifically — not on chains that aren't Bitcoin — is the structurally correct answer

If the framework in this guide resonates, the book is the next step.

Join the Endgame launch waitlist →

About Cadena Bitcoin

Cadena Bitcoin is a non-custodial Bitcoin credit market built on Bitcoin's base layer. The mission is to enable lenders to earn yield on their Bitcoin and borrowers to access dollar liquidity without surrendering custody — using Discreet Log Contracts to enforce settlement at maturity without intermediary discretion.

Current product:

• Contract sizes: $1,000 to $1,000,000 USD per single contract. Larger sizes are syndicated across multiple parallel contracts.
• Terms: 1-year standard. 90-day terms are available subject to lender match.
• Loan-to-Value: 50% (lender's USD principal protected at the contract pool down to a 50% BTC decline between funding and maturity).
• Rates: Determined by the marketplace at the time of match. Current indicative ranges are approximately 11-12% annualized for lenders and 11-12% all-in for borrowers, including a 1% Cadena platform fee on the borrower side. Rates clear at market and can change with supply and demand.
• Settlement: Pre-signed Contract Execution Transactions broadcast on Bitcoin mainnet at maturity per the DLCP Oracle's BTC/USD attestation.
• Custody: Both parties keep self-custody throughout. Cadena holds no key at any point.

Regulatory posture:

• Cadena Bitcoin S.A. de C.V. — registered Bitcoin Service Provider in El Salvador.
• Sumsub KYC mandatory, on-device through the open-sourced Cadena Signer App. Identity flows to Sumsub directly, never through Cadena.
• The Cadena Signer App is open-source and available for code review on request.

Verified on-chain: An early Cadena contract settled successfully on Bitcoin's mainnet on May 9, 2026. Verifiable at mempool.space/tx/95bf1377…9e5aab7d.

Getting started

• Website: cadenabitcoin.com
• Open the marketplace: view live market rates with no registration required
• Sign up: $1,000 minimum, KYC in under 10 minutes via the Signer App
• Talk to the founder: calendly.com/cadenabitcoin-info/30min
• Email: hello@cadenabitcoin.com
• Endgame book launch waitlist: kevin@cadenabitcoin.com

Stay close

• Freedom Money Podcast — interviews with Bitcoin operators and credit-architecture thinkers
• Cadena Medium — deep-dives on the architecture and the market
• X / @cadenabitcoin — daily product updates and market commentary
• LinkedIn / Kevin Bell — founder commentary on Bitcoin credit, sovereign debt, and sound money

Disclaimer

This guide is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, tax, or legal advice. Bitcoin credit involves real risks, including the potential loss of principal, gap risk below the 50% LTV threshold, and operational risks of any new financial infrastructure. Past performance — including the May 9, 2026 mainnet settlement — does not guarantee future outcomes. Always conduct your own diligence and consult qualified professionals before deploying capital.

Rates shown reflect current market indicative pricing. Actual rates are determined at the time of match between lender and borrower, and clear at the marketplace. Rates can and will change with supply and demand.

Cadena Bitcoin S.A. de C.V. is a registered Bitcoin Service Provider in El Salvador. The Cadena Signer App is open-source and available for review.

© 2026 Cadena Bitcoin. All rights reserved. This guide may be shared and distributed freely for educational purposes with proper attribution.

The Bitcoin Holder's Guide to Non-Custodial Lending · Published by Cadena Bitcoin · 2026 Edition · Last updated: May 13, 2026