MENU
Under FATF guidance, ''unhosted wallets'' are:
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium CCAS Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Unhosted wallets are self-custody wallets controlled directly by the user without third-party oversight, posing higher anonymity and AML risks.
12 comments · newest first
TA
Tamie
3 months ago
But what about D? Multi-sig adds security, right?
SH
Shaquana
4 months ago
Agreed! B makes sense. It's about user autonomy.
DE
Delsie
4 months ago
I think it's B. Users need to control their keys.
JA
Janey
4 months ago
Multi-sig wallets are cool, but not what unhosted means.
EL
Elli
4 months ago
Definitely not A or C, those are custodial!
HE
Helene
4 months ago
Wait, are we sure about that? Sounds too simple.
LA
Lauran
6 months ago
Totally agree, unhosted means no third-party control.
MA
Mayra
6 months ago
B is correct! Users control their own keys.
LA
Lawana
7 months ago
I’m a bit confused. I thought multi-sig wallets could also be considered unhosted, but I guess that’s not the main point here.
LE
Leota
7 months ago
I practiced a similar question last week, and I believe unhosted wallets are definitely those where users have direct control, so B seems right.
KR
Kristeen
7 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I remember something about unhosted wallets being different from custodial ones. Maybe it’s C?
NA
Nancey
7 months ago
I think "unhosted wallets" refers to wallets where users control their own private keys, so I’d lean towards option B.