Infinite vs Due: custody, compliance, and the account

Two networks, different primitives

Due has built real corridor breadth quickly: local rails across dozens of markets, SWIFT for major currencies, and a developer experience that moves fast. For teams that want self-custody and wide payout reach, it is a genuine contender, and this essay assumes you are taking it seriously.

Infinite starts from a different question: not how far the rails reach, but what your customer actually holds and who answers for the money. On Infinite the answer is concrete: a real demand deposit account, individually titled to each customer at chartered, FDIC-insured bank partners, with stablecoins beside fiat and one compliance program over all of it.

Custody: self-custody, or the bank's perimeter

Due publicly describes its wallets as fully non-custodial: the customer controls the keys, and per its docs the provider never has access to them. That is a legitimate architecture with real advantages for teams that want customers in control of their own keys. Infinite deliberately offers the other pole: bank-owned wallets, established and controlled by a chartered bank partner. Your customer holds the balance; the bank holds the wallet and its keys, which never leave the bank's custody perimeter, nothing for your team to secure, rotate, or lose. It is built for businesses that want stablecoin speed but won't touch self-custody.

Self-custody asks your customer to hold the keys. Bank-owned custody asks them to hold nothing but the balance.

The account your customer holds

Across much of the market, the account primitive is a named virtual account, deposit details issued in the customer's name whose underlying structure is not published. The questions that matter are simple: where do the funds actually sit, and how is ownership recorded? On Infinite, each customer's account is a real DDA with its own account and routing numbers, not a virtual sub-ledger on a pooled account, so ownership lives in account records.

Compliance: the program around verification

Most modern providers run verification well, and many document broader AML adherence; verification is table stakes. The differences appear in the program around it: who runs ongoing transaction monitoring across your whole portfolio of customers, how requests for information reach your users, who assembles the case file, and what your auditors see. On Infinite that program is the product: hosted flows carry your brand, RFIs are API states rather than emails, AI assembles every case inside human-approved policy, with judgment calls routed to named analysts, and first-time reviews that traditionally take around 30 days close in 1–2. A counterparty vetted once is vetted for every business on the network.

When each fits

If you want customers holding their own keys and are optimizing for payout reach, Due's self-custody architecture is built for exactly that. If your customers are businesses that need bank-perimeter custody, individually titled accounts, and a compliance program (monitoring, RFIs, audit trail) operated for them, that is the job Infinite is built for. Both can be true in the same market; the fork is the primitive your product stands on.

Frequently asked questions