As a seasoned crypto investor with over a decade of experience navigating the digital asset landscape, I find Michael Saylor’s recent suggestion that crypto users should rely on big banks to custody Bitcoin highly questionable and counterproductive. My journey into this space has been marked by the pursuit of financial sovereignty and the belief in the power of decentralization, which aligns more closely with Vitalik Buterin’s stance on self-custody.
According to Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor’s idea that Bitcoin users should entrust big banks for custody is considered “extremely absurd” or “ridiculous.” This adds to the increasing criticism coming from the cryptocurrency community.
As a researcher, I might express it this way: “In response to a recent post by Jameson Lopp, the chief security officer at Bitcoin custody firm Casa, I wholeheartedly agree with his praise for self-custody. Vigenere, in his response, seemed to voice unconventional opinions that I find quite unusual.
Recently, criticism has been directed towards Michael Saylor following his statement on October 21st, where he suggested Bitcoin (BTC) owners should entrust their holdings in “too big to fail” banks that are designed to safeguard financial assets. This seems like a shift from his earlier views advocating for self-custody, leading some to question his stance.
According to Butern, Saylor seems to advocate for a “regulatory capture strategy” when it comes to safeguarding cryptocurrencies. This involves firms like BlackRock and Fidelity, who manage investments, owning the assets, given that many lawmakers and law enforcement agencies have ties to these organizations.
“There’s plenty of precedent for how this strategy can fail, and for me, it’s not what crypto is about.”
During his interview with financial markets reporter Madison Reidy, Saylor cautioned about individuals known as “crypto-anarchists,” highlighting that unregulated entities which reject acknowledgment of governments, taxes, or reporting obligations could potentially raise the likelihood of their assets being confiscated.
Criticism toward Saylor’s comments has been mounting since.
Lopp emphasized that self-custody isn’t only crucial for individual Bitcoin owners; it also plays a vital role in enhancing and reinforcing the overall network’s resilience and growth.
On October 22nd, Erik Voorhees, ShapeShift’s founder, reinforced his argument by stating that the capacity to withdraw Bitcoin into personal control serves as a “counterbalance,” preventing the centralization and potential corruption that typically arise in any other system. He further emphasized this point.
“For Saylor to so casually dismiss this fundamental precept is wholly inappropriate and deserves the backlash.”
As a researcher looking back at an interview from 2022, I recall that MicroStrategy’s CEO, Michael Saylor, expressed his beliefs regarding the custody of cryptocurrencies. He advocated for the role of large, centralized intermediaries in holding these digital assets, citing several reasons to support his perspective.
Three weeks ago, following the collapse of FTX, was when the Blockware team pointed out that Bitcoin (BTC) held by users on the platform was no longer accessible,” they stated in a recent post on their platform on October 22nd.
Read More
- CYBER PREDICTION. CYBER cryptocurrency
- ZK PREDICTION. ZK cryptocurrency
- DEEP PREDICTION. DEEP cryptocurrency
- BADGER PREDICTION. BADGER cryptocurrency
- Yellowjackets Season 3 Reveals First Cast Photos and One of Them is Devastating
- BTC PREDICTION. BTC cryptocurrency
- JASMY PREDICTION. JASMY cryptocurrency
- FARM PREDICTION. FARM cryptocurrency
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- ETH CAD PREDICTION. ETH cryptocurrency
2024-10-23 08:59