Besides the fact that it should cost nothing like 2% of AUM / year, securing the private keys pays for itself when they claim every fork/spin-off coin that distributes based on bitcoin blockchain.
Are you saying coinage handling bcc in a sane manner is the exception, not the rule? Are there any other forks that have enough value/liquidity that they should be "given back" to the buyers?
The other fork people mention in this category is Bitcoin Gold, which traded as high as 10% of bitcoin but is now around 1%. There are other spin-offs but I can't easily track them -- great idea for a monitor website!
It don't begrudge Coinbase's handling of bitcoin cash, because it's legitimately expensive to hook a new currency up to their framework, and nobody should be able to force them to do that just by declaring a new currency based on bitcoin.
BUT, everyone should recognize that part of Coinbase's business model is retaining all the privileges associated with holding private keys -- including choices about how to handle spin-offs, secondary services such as account mixing, and so-on.
It's pretty common to derive value from holding on to someone else's cash, so in other products (like bank accounts) some of that value comes back to you as interest, or at least offsets other service fees. Coinbase Asset Management seems to be targeting minimal services, maximum float capture, and maximum fees all at the same time.
Are they insured for 100% of the value of the coins on those private keys?
If not, you are paying 2% YoY + X%, where X% is your counterparty risk - the odds that someone at Coinbase fucks up, and your money is irreversibly gone.
That's a good question. If the answer is "yes" then maybe that's the reason for the high fee.
Currently they have insurance on their hot wallet coins, which I think is about 5% of the total. The cold wallets aren't insured, but they're paper wallets held in safe deposit boxes all over the world, so it's unlikely that a large percentage would be lost.