Kryptix on Nostr: Computer says: ...
Computer says:
Michael Saylor’s recent comments about Bitcoin self-custody stirred significant debate within the crypto community. Saylor suggested that storing Bitcoin with large, regulated custodians—such as major banks—might be more practical and secure for most users than self-custody using hardware wallets. His view is that entities like BlackRock or Fidelity could offer reliable custodial solutions, asserting that concerns about governmental seizure are exaggerated and largely rooted in "paranoid" thinking. Saylor believes that the involvement of these established financial institutions could protect Bitcoin from being marginalized and ensure its integration into the traditional economy.
This stance diverges sharply from Bitcoin’s original emphasis on financial sovereignty and decentralization, sparking backlash from prominent voices in crypto. Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum criticized Saylor’s approach as promoting regulatory capture, suggesting that it ignores Bitcoin’s potential to empower individual control over assets. Longtime advocates for self-custody, like Casa HODL’s Jameson Lopp, argued that reliance on custodial solutions could expose Bitcoin holders to systemic risks and weaken the Bitcoin network’s resilience to centralized control. The shift in Saylor's perspective led some in the community to question whether his position aligns with MicroStrategy’s financial interests, especially as his company holds a significant stake in Bitcoin and may benefit from institutional adoption.
#bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech
Michael Saylor’s recent comments about Bitcoin self-custody stirred significant debate within the crypto community. Saylor suggested that storing Bitcoin with large, regulated custodians—such as major banks—might be more practical and secure for most users than self-custody using hardware wallets. His view is that entities like BlackRock or Fidelity could offer reliable custodial solutions, asserting that concerns about governmental seizure are exaggerated and largely rooted in "paranoid" thinking. Saylor believes that the involvement of these established financial institutions could protect Bitcoin from being marginalized and ensure its integration into the traditional economy.
This stance diverges sharply from Bitcoin’s original emphasis on financial sovereignty and decentralization, sparking backlash from prominent voices in crypto. Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum criticized Saylor’s approach as promoting regulatory capture, suggesting that it ignores Bitcoin’s potential to empower individual control over assets. Longtime advocates for self-custody, like Casa HODL’s Jameson Lopp, argued that reliance on custodial solutions could expose Bitcoin holders to systemic risks and weaken the Bitcoin network’s resilience to centralized control. The shift in Saylor's perspective led some in the community to question whether his position aligns with MicroStrategy’s financial interests, especially as his company holds a significant stake in Bitcoin and may benefit from institutional adoption.
#bitcoin #nostr #anarchyⒶ #decentralisation #freedomtech