Michael Saylor faces strong backlash over Bitcoin opinions

-

The executive chairman of MicroStrategy just stirred up a heated debate in the Bitcoin community with his recent comments about Bitcoin custody.

Saylor suggested that large financial institutions could be the best custodians for Bitcoin.

Be your own bank?

In an interview with Madison Reidy, Saylor expressed his belief that institutional custody might be a safer option than managing Bitcoin individually.

This is a hge shift from his earlier stance, where he championed self-custody as a way to avoid centralized control.

Saylor argued that major financial institutions, often labeled as “too big to fail,” could effectively safeguard Bitcoin.

He proposed that instead of using hardware wallets, it might be better to trust banks, which he views as natural custodians for financial assets, but this new perspective contradicts his previous warnings about the dangers of relying on custodians.

“In systems where there is no self-custody, the custodians accumulate too much power, and then they can abuse that power.”

The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.

Supporters of self-custody are concerned that trusting large institutions increases risks tied to centralization and government oversight.

They point to historical events like Executive Order 6102 from April 5, 1933, which restricted private gold ownership as evidence of these dangers.

During the interview, Saylor dismissed fears of government confiscation as exaggerated paranoia from “crypto-anarchists.”

He claimed that no gold was forcibly taken and that citizens willingly surrendered their gold.

Since the U.S. hasn’t adopted a Bitcoin-based monetary system, he argued it’s unreasonable to compare the 1933 gold confiscation to potential future Bitcoin confiscation.

The community isn’t happy

Saylor’s opinions prompted quite strong reactions from the Bitcoin community on X. John Carvalho, CEO of Synonym, criticized Saylor’s change in viewpoint, recalling his earlier assertion that Bitcoin is hope for everyone.

Carvalho questioned what this means if we disregard the concerns of paranoid crypto-anarchists as mere salespeople with hidden agendas.

Samson Mow, CEO of Jan3, joined to the discussion by stating that a government doesn’t need to physically seize your Bitcoin.

Instead, it can simply lock custodial BTC into approved custodians indefinitely—what he referred to as Institutional Bitcoin.

He warned that this could diminish the utility of Bitcoin and drive its price down.

Have you read it yet? Bitcoin open interest surpasses $40 billion, should we worry?

LATEST POSTS

Bitcoin’s Brutal Cycle Warning: Can BTC Really Sink to $32,000?

Bitcoin sold off hard in the last 24 hours, sliding from the $88,000–$89,000 area and then breaking down fast toward $82,700 on the 4 hour...

The Debt-Free Orange: Strive’s Masterclass in Corporate Restructuring

In the corporate Bitcoin world, there is the "Saylor Way". Leveraging everything to buy more sats. Nothing complex. And then there is what we just witnessed...

Bitcoin at $88,000: Digital Gold or Just Nasdaq’s Younger Brother?

While gold and silver have been smashing through ATHs over the past week, the king of the crypto market looks exhausted. Bitcoin is currently grinding...

Kraken’s DeFi Earn: Finally, You Don’t Need a PhD to Harvest Yield

Let’s be honest, for the average person, "real" DeFi has always been a bit of a nightmare. Between managing seed phrases, dodging rug pulls, and...
118FollowersFollow

Most Popular

Guest posts