In a series of contentious remarks, Michael Saylor, founder of MicroStrategy, suggested that Bitcoin users should consider relying on major banks for the custody of their assets. This stance has drawn significant criticism from prominent figures in the cryptocurrency space, most notably Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin. He expressed strong disapproval of Saylor’s comments, labeling them as irrational and counterproductive to the ethos of the crypto community.
Buterin’s response followed Saylor’s reversal from advocating self-custody to promoting the idea of using “too big to fail” banks as custodians for Bitcoin . This shift appears to contradict previous statements that emphasized the importance of holding assets independently. The Ethereum co-founder argues that Saylor’s position could lead to a regulatory approach that undermines the decentralized principles of cryptocurrency, suggesting that major investment firms like BlackRock and Fidelity could end up controlling the space with significant ties to governmental bodies.
The backlash against Saylor has been mounting, with notable voices in the industry emphasizing the critical role of self-custody. Jameson Lopp, a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community, affirmed that individual custody is essential not only for personal asset security but also for the overall resilience of the Bitcoin network. This sentiment was echoed by Erik Voorhees, founder of ShapeShift, who underscored that the ability to manage one’s own Bitcoin is vital in preventing centralization and corruption within the system.
Critics of Saylor’s stance also referenced past incidents, such as the collapse of FTX, as a cautionary tale about the risks associated with relying on centralized entities for asset custody. The prevailing sentiment is that true independence in the cryptocurrency world comes from self-custody, which remains a foundational principle that many believe should not be overlooked or dismissed.
