The cryptocurrency community is abuzz with controversy following remarks by a prominent executive in the Bitcoin development sector. Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, has recently faced significant backlash for suggesting that large financial institutions should assume custody of Bitcoin, a stance that many find disappointing and contentious.
The Contentious Remark
In a recent podcast interview, Saylor advised against the self-custody of Bitcoin, advocating instead for custodianship by major financial institutions such as banks. He argued that these established entities are better equipped to protect financial assets, including cryptocurrencies, due to their longstanding security measures and infrastructure.
During the interview, Saylor downplayed the risk of government seizure of Bitcoin, labeling it as a mere “trope.” He contended that the risk increases when Bitcoin is managed by “crypto-anarchists” who reject government authority, tax compliance, and reporting obligations. In contrast, he claimed that financial institutions adhere to legal and tax responsibilities, reducing the likelihood of government intervention.
His comments have left many in the cryptocurrency realm perplexed, as the notion of Bitcoin custodianship by large banks seems at odds with the decentralized ethos of cryptocurrencies.
A ‘Batshit Insane’ Idea
Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, was quick to criticize Saylor’s perspective, calling it “batshit insane.” Buterin argued that the idea of banks holding Bitcoin is outdated, especially given the technological advancements that have dramatically altered the landscape of cryptocurrency trading and custody.
I probably did more than most to spread the “mountain man” trope (btw I consider those remarks of mine outdated; snarks and AA changed the tradeoff space completely), and I’ll happily say that I think @saylor‘s comments are batshit insane. He seems to be explicitly arguing for a… — vitalik.eth (@VitalikButerin) October 22, 2024
Buterin does not see Saylor’s approach as a viable strategy for protecting cryptocurrencies. He emphasized that the very essence of cryptocurrency is to avoid centralized control, highlighting numerous instances where centralized strategies have previously failed.
Bitcoin Community Refutes The Idea
Advocates of Bitcoin self-custody have strongly opposed Saylor’s proposal, emphasizing the importance of maintaining control over one’s digital assets. Sina G, co-founder of 21st Capital, warned that relegating Bitcoin to bank custody could transform it into an “investment petrock,” potentially stalling its use as a currency.
Sina G expressed concern, viewing Saylor as a spokesperson for government and financial institutions, which further fuels skepticism within the community.
If you’re surprised by Saylor’s recent comments then you haven’t been paying attention. — Jameson Lopp (@lopp) October 21, 2024
Jameson Lopp, Chief Security Officer at Casa HODL, also criticized the idea, highlighting the long-term implications for the cryptocurrency ecosystem. Lopp argued that centralizing Bitcoin custody increases risks, including loss, seizure, and the disenfranchisement of users due to governance actions like trading forks and node operations.
Lopp emphasized that self-custody plays a crucial role in strengthening and enhancing the Bitcoin network, underscoring its significance beyond individual asset management.
