Threshold Network excels at decentralized governance and operational resilience because it is the product of a merger between Keep Network and NuCypher. This creates a large, unified network of over 100,000 stakers securing its tBTC v2 protocol. Its multi-asset staking (T, NU, KEEP) and on-chain DAO governance provide a robust, battle-tested system, with over $1.5B in total value secured (TVS) across its applications.
LABS
Comparisons
Threshold Network vs Keep Network for private tBTC
A technical analysis comparing the merged Threshold Network architecture with the original Keep Network for decentralized custody in the tBTC bridge. Focus on security models, operational costs, and architectural trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Evolution of Decentralized Bitcoin Custody
A technical breakdown of the two leading architectures for decentralized, non-custodial Bitcoin-to-Ethereum bridges.
Keep Network (now part of Threshold) pioneered the original tBTC v1 with a focus on pure, Bitcoin-backed collateral. Its design required signers to lock 150% of the minted tBTC value in BTC itself, creating a strong cryptoeconomic bond. This resulted in a trade-off of higher capital efficiency for arguably stronger, asset-native security guarantees before its evolution into the merged entity.
The key architectural trade-off: Threshold's tBTC v2 offers greater scalability and flexibility with multi-asset staking and a larger operator set, ideal for protocols prioritizing integration ease and Ethereum ecosystem alignment. The original Keep tBTC v1 model prioritized maximal Bitcoin-native security, better for use cases where collateral purity outweighs capital efficiency concerns. Today, the choice is largely between adopting the mature Threshold standard or evaluating its legacy design principles for new architectures.
tldr-summary
Threshold Network vs Keep Network
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two leading decentralized custody networks for tBTC, highlighting their architectural strengths and ideal deployment scenarios.
02
Threshold Network: Multi-Asset & EVM Native
Beyond Bitcoin: The network supports tBTC (BTC), tETH (ETH), and other assets via its generalized threshold cryptography. It's natively built for EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base). This matters for DeFi teams building cross-chain liquidity pools or needing to bridge multiple assets under a single, audited protocol.
2+
Supported Assets
04
Keep Network: Dedicated Node Operators
Specialized Staking: Operators run keep-random-beacon and keep-ecdsa clients, staking KEEP/ETH. The system is optimized for the singular task of secure Bitcoin custody. This matters for infrastructure teams who want to run nodes for a focused protocol with predictable cryptographic operations and slashing conditions.
100+
Active Nodes (Historic Peak)
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Threshold Network vs Keep Network for tBTC
Direct comparison of key technical and operational metrics for private tBTC implementations.
| Metric | Threshold Network | Keep Network |
|---|---|---|
Architecture Model | Multi-Client, Decentralized | Single-Client, Federated |
Active Signer Nodes (Operators) | ~200+ | ~10-20 |
tBTC v2 TVL (approx.) | $200M+ | $50M+ |
Underlying Cryptography | ECDSA + DKG | ECDSA |
Native Token for Staking | T (merged NU/KEEP) | KEEP |
Supports Multiple Assets | ||
Governance Model | Threshold DAO | Keep Core Team |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Threshold Network vs Keep Network for tBTC
A technical breakdown of the two leading networks powering tBTC v2, focusing on security models, operational trade-offs, and protocol governance.
01
Threshold Network: Decentralized Governance
Merged Network Advantage: Born from the merger of Keep and NuCypher. This creates a larger, unified node operator set and a single governance token (T). This matters for protocol stability and long-term alignment, reducing fragmentation risks seen in multi-token systems.
1 Token (T)
Governance & Staking
02
Threshold Network: Enhanced Security Pool
Larger Staking Base: Inherits stakers from both predecessor networks, creating a more robust and economically secure pool for tBTC guardians. This matters for maximizing the economic security (TVL) backing the minted tBTC, a critical metric for institutional adoption.
~$200M
Network TVL
04
Keep Network: Independent Protocol Roadmap
Development Autonomy: While powering tBTC v2, Keep maintains its own token (KEEP) and can innovate on its core random beacon and keep technology for other use cases. This matters for developers or node operators invested specifically in Keep's broader privacy infrastructure vision beyond just tBTC.
KEEP
Native Token
pros-cons-b
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Threshold Network vs Keep Network for Private tBTC
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for securing Bitcoin on Ethereum. Both are contenders for tBTC v2, but with distinct approaches.
02
Keep Network's Weakness: Limited Protocol Scope
Niche application focus: Keep was built primarily for tBTC. While secure, this specialization means it lacks the generalized threshold cryptography toolkit of its successor. For projects needing private computation (e.g., NuCypher's merger) or other DKG applications, Keep's infrastructure is less extensible than Threshold's.
04
Threshold Network's Weakness: Increased Operational Complexity
Multi-token staking overhead: The T token (from the merger) introduces a dual-stake model (T + KEEP legacy) that can complicate node operator economics. For a dedicated tBTC bridge, this adds unnecessary governance and incentive layers compared to Keep's simpler, single-purpose operator set. This matters for deployments valuing minimal coordination.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Threshold Network for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for established, TVL-heavy protocols. Strengths: tBTC v2 is battle-tested with over $200M in TVL and deep integrations (Aave, Compound, Curve). Its multi-asset collateral (staked ETH, ETH, WBTC) provides robust economic security and reduces systemic risk. The T token staking model is familiar to DeFi users and integrates with existing DeFi legos. Considerations: Mint/redemption times are slower (hours) due to optimistic fraud proofs, which may not suit high-frequency strategies. The tBTC v1 to v2 migration is a historical consideration for existing users.
Keep Network for DeFi
Verdict: A legacy, simpler model for niche or experimental applications. Strengths: The original tBTC v1 design is conceptually straightforward: a 1:1 ETH-backed BTC peg with a random beacon for signer selection. It's a clean reference implementation for understanding private tBTC mechanics. Considerations: Deprecated in favor of Threshold. The v1 system is no longer actively developed, carries lower security guarantees due to a smaller, fixed signer set, and lacks the multi-asset backing of v2. Not recommended for new production DeFi applications.
TBTC INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Deep Dive: Custody Models and Security
A technical comparison of the decentralized custody architectures powering tBTC v1 (Keep Network) and tBTC v2 (Threshold Network). This analysis covers security models, operational trade-offs, and key differentiators for protocol architects.
The core difference is the underlying cryptographic protocol for distributed custody. Keep Network's tBTC v1 uses a multi-party ECDSA signing protocol. Threshold Network's tBTC v2 upgrades this to a multi-party threshold ECDSA (t-ECDSA) protocol, which is more efficient and secure. This allows tBTC v2 to support a dynamic, permissionless set of signers (the Threshold DAO) rather than fixed, whitelisted signer groups, fundamentally decentralizing the custody layer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Threshold and Keep for tBTC hinges on your protocol's tolerance for decentralization trade-offs versus its need for battle-tested, high-throughput infrastructure.
Threshold Network excels at maximizing decentralization and censorship resistance for tBTC v2. Its architecture, which merges the Keep and NuCypher networks, utilizes a decentralized, permissionless signer set secured by staked T tokens. This results in a robust, community-governed system where no single entity controls the minting process. For example, its design directly counters the centralization risks of earlier tBTC versions, making it the preferred choice for protocols where ideological alignment with Ethereum's core values is paramount.
Keep Network's tBTC v1 takes a different approach by prioritizing operational efficiency and developer experience. Its model relies on a smaller, permissioned set of professional signer groups, which historically enabled faster integrations and higher practical throughput for applications. This results in a trade-off: reduced decentralization for greater predictability and lower operational overhead. The v1 system successfully secured over $1B in TVL at its peak, proving its reliability for applications needing a stable, high-capacity bridge.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing decentralization and aligning with a community-owned future for Bitcoin on Ethereum, choose Threshold Network's tBTC v2. Its permissionless signer model and governance by the T DAO make it the strategic long-term bet. If you prioritize proven, high-throughput infrastructure with simpler integration and are comfortable with a more curated security model, Keep Network's established tBTC v1 ecosystem may be the pragmatic choice, especially for time-sensitive deployments.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall