MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor reiterated his views on Bitcoin custody on X yesterday. This view has been widely interpreted by the community as a clarification of previous remarks regarding institutional custody and support for self-custody principles!
The incident originated a few days ago when he suggested in an interview that holding Bitcoin with regulated entities like BlackRock and Fidelity is a safer choice, which upset many people.
However, Saylor has now clarified his position, stating that he supports those who are willing and able to self-custody their bitcoins and believes everyone has the right to choose how to store their bitcoins. He also emphasized that Bitcoin should be open to all forms of investment, welcoming contributions from individuals and institutions.
As spot Bitcoin ETFs and other traditional investment tools become increasingly popular, the debate around self-custody of cryptocurrencies continues to heat up. Saylor's latest clarification came after strong opposition from the crypto community.
Earlier, Saylor emphasized in a statement to a New Zealand Herald reporter that holding Bitcoin by unregulated private entities and 'crypto anarchists' poses risks, as these individuals often reject government oversight, taxation, and reporting requirements. He believes this increases the likelihood of assets being seized, as these entities operate outside regulatory frameworks. In contrast, when Bitcoin is held by large regulated public institutions, the risk of seizure is greatly reduced.
This controversial statement has upset many cryptocurrency supporters. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin called the remarks 'utterly insane' and believes Saylor's actions contradict the core principles of cryptocurrency.
Buterin pointed out that there have been enough precedents of such strategies failing and emphasized that cryptocurrency is about decentralization and resisting the control of large institutions.
Famous Bitcoin maximalist Max Keiser also criticized Saylor for attacking self-custody, stating that these remarks reflect a regressive tendency that supports central banks, which Bitcoin was originally meant to challenge.
Conclusion:
In my view, Saylor's recent tweet on X seems more like a response to the community's misinterpretation of his previous remarks, as his earlier statements may have been understood by some as a denial of self-custody, which sparked quite a reaction in the crypto community.
But Saylor's later clarification indicates that he actually supports the right to individual self-custody and believes everyone should have the freedom to choose how to store their bitcoins.
This clarification may stem from valuing community feedback or correcting those who may have misunderstood his original intentions. As an influential figure in the cryptocurrency space, Saylor's remarks are closely scrutinized, so timely clarification is important when misunderstandings arise.
This also indicates that even heavyweight figures in the industry need to maintain good communication with the community to ensure their views are correctly understood. Overall, Saylor's response seems aimed at promoting dialogue rather than evading responsibility or downplaying his previous remarks.
💬 What does everyone think? Do you prefer your Bitcoin to be held by institutions, self-custodied, or in some other way you think is better? Come join the discussion in the comments!
