Self-custody moves both the risk and the responsibility
Self-custody shifts both the risk and the responsibility of holding funds. In a wallet-only model, no operator can freeze a balance, block a withdrawal or close an account. That is a genuine advantage for users wary of custodial interference. It is also the source of a different problem.
When the keys are yours, so is the failure mode. A lost seed phrase, a compromised device or a signature granted to a malicious contract can result in irreversible loss. There is no support line that can restore access, and no counterparty obliged to make the user whole. The absence of an intermediary cuts both ways.
Sensible practice is unglamorous. Keeping seed phrases offline and separate from the device used for betting, using a dedicated wallet rather than one that holds long-term savings, and checking contract approvals are basic steps. None of them are guarantees, but they reduce the surface area for mistakes.
Bettors should be clear about what they are choosing. Self-custody is not a safety feature in itself; it is a transfer of control. Whether that improves the outcome depends entirely on how carefully the user manages it.