Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, reiterated his views on Bitcoin custody on X yesterday. This perspective has been generally interpreted by the community as a clarification of his previous remarks on institutional custody and support for self-custody principles!
The incident originated a few days ago when he suggested in an interview that holding Bitcoin through regulated entities like BlackRock and Fidelity is a safer choice, which upset many people.
However, Saylor has now clarified his stance, stating that he supports those who are willing and able to self-custody their Bitcoin, and believes everyone has the right to choose how to store their own Bitcoin. 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 surrounding 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 the New Zealand Herald that Bitcoin being held 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 significantly reduced.
This controversial statement has upset many cryptocurrency supporters. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin described these remarks as 'utterly insane' and believes Saylor's approach contradicts the core principles of cryptocurrency.
Buterin pointed out that there have been enough precedents for the failure of such strategies, emphasizing that cryptocurrency is about decentralization and resisting the control of large institutions.
Notable Bitcoin enthusiast Max Keiser also criticized Saylor's remarks attacking self-custody, claiming these comments reflect a regressive tendency that supports the central banks 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 comments may have been understood by some as a denial of self-custody, which sparked quite a reaction in the crypto community.
However, Saylor's subsequent clarification indicates that he actually supports the right of individuals to self-custody and believes everyone should have the freedom to choose how to store their own Bitcoin.
This clarification may stem from a recognition of community feedback or a desire to correct those who may have misunderstood his intentions. As an influential figure in the crypto space, Saylor's statements are closely watched, so it's important to clarify misunderstandings promptly.
This also indicates that even heavyweight figures in the industry need to maintain good communication with the community to ensure their views are accurately understood. Overall, Saylor's response seems aimed at promoting dialogue rather than evading responsibility or downplaying his previous remarks.
💬 What do you think? Are you more inclined towards institutional custody, personal custody, or another method you believe is better for your Bitcoin? Come join the discussion in the comments!
