Some of Michael Saylor's recent controversial remarks have sparked intense debates within the community regarding the core values of cryptocurrency, asset security, and financial freedom. Let's review and briefly interpret the events!
On October 21, MicroStrategy's Executive Chairman Michael Saylor, in an interview with financial markets journalist Madison Reidy, stated that investors can confidently entrust Bitcoin to large institutions or banks, which would not incur any losses for institutional investors.
This viewpoint immediately caused a stir in the Bitcoin OG and cryptocurrency community, as many felt it contradicted Saylor's previous support for self-custody!
Cause of the event and position analysis
Why did Saylor's remarks provoke such a strong reaction? It's important to note that when FTX declared bankruptcy in November 2022, Saylor emphasized the importance of self-custody, and he has always been an advocate of self-custody. Therefore, when he now proposes that entrusting Bitcoin to large institutions, venture capital firms, large companies, or banks is also a good choice, this shift in attitude has left many confused and dissatisfied.
However, when you understand Saylor's professional background, it's not surprising why he holds such a viewpoint. After all, he not only has a deep background in Wall Street and venture capital circles but has also long served as the CEO of a public company. Therefore, his perspective on entrusting Bitcoin to large institutions can be considered reasonable.
But it is worth noting that Saylor did not say that investors cannot hold Bitcoin themselves; he merely suggested that entrusting Bitcoin to those 'too big to fail' institutions, such as BlackRock, JP Morgan, and other large institutions, is relatively safe.
Saylor's viewpoint is somewhat commendable, as for those investors who lack a thorough understanding of blockchain technology and the industry, these large institutions/banks focused on asset custody should logically be considered trustworthy.
Triggered intense debate within the community
When asked whether the U.S. government would strip Bitcoin holders of their self-custody rights, Saylor dismissed such concerns, stating that those who fear the state would approve Bitcoin confiscation are 'paranoid crypto-anarchists.'
Some Bitcoin supporters, such as the founder of 21st Capital 'Sina' and author Simon Dixon (of Future Bank), criticized Saylor's views, arguing that he is undermining the importance of self-custody, which could be detrimental to Bitcoin's long-term development.
However, some support Saylor, arguing that his remarks are more aimed at institutional investors rather than individuals. They believe that large institutions need more reliable custody solutions, and traditional financial institutions may be more suitable for this role.
Overall, this debate highlights the divisions within the Bitcoin community regarding custody issues. Some insist on the principles of decentralization and self-custody, while others believe that more traditional custody solutions are necessary for the widespread adoption of Bitcoin and institutional investment.
Conclusion:
Entrusting Bitcoin to large institutions or banks means you lose complete control over your assets, which is unacceptable for those who value asset security and financial freedom. Therefore, the wisest approach is to self-custody Bitcoin, using cold wallets to ensure asset security, so you can fully control your wealth.
However, self-custody of Bitcoin also places higher demands on investors' expertise, asset management, and financial scheduling. Therefore, for inexperienced investors, entrusting assets to large institutions or banks is undoubtedly a wise choice.
In conclusion, whether choosing institutional custody or self-holding Bitcoin, each method has its advantages and challenges. Therefore, investors should determine the most suitable asset custody method based on their needs, risk tolerance, and level of expertise.
💬 What do you think? If you have a large amount of Bitcoin assets, would you choose to entrust them to large institutions or banks, or would you safeguard them yourself using cold wallets? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!
