AlphaNet describes its trading model as non-custodial. The intended distinction is that users retain control of their wallets rather than giving AlphaNet their private keys. Trading capital can nevertheless be deposited into the infrastructure supporting a strategy.
A deposit is not the same as sharing a private key
A wallet connection identifies the account. Trading permissions authorize particular actions. A deposit changes where capital is recorded or held for trading. Those are separate events, even when they appear in one onboarding experience.
AlphaNet’s guide documents wallet connection, trading activation and deposits as distinct parts of that experience. It should not be read as a promise that allocated capital remains an unused balance in the wallet.
What should the custody explanation make clear?
The important questions concern the destination of collateral, the scope of permissions, the conditions for closing positions and the treatment of withdrawals. These details can differ between venue integrations, so a description of one deployment should not be assumed to cover every future version.
No legitimate support process requires a recovery phrase or private key. Requests for either should be treated as unsafe.
Non-custodial design is a control model, not an insurance policy. It does not eliminate strategy losses, smart-contract risk or the possibility of delays in trading and settlement.