Michael Saylor's comments on "regulated Bitcoin custody" were criticized by Vitalik
ChainCatcher news, reported by The Block, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently criticized the views of MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor. In a recent interview with the New Zealand Herald, Saylor stated that concerns about using regulated entities to custody Bitcoin mainly stem from "paranoid cryptocurrency anarchists." He elaborated on the reasons for Bitcoin being a superior digital asset and store of value, arguing that it should be regarded as "a digital currency crucial to human progress." However, his views on regulated custody sparked strong reactions within the Bitcoin community, particularly from advocates of self-custody, some of whom questioned whether Saylor truly understands the essence of Bitcoin.In response to this controversy, Vitalik expressed his views on the X platform. He bluntly stated, "I’m happy to say that I think Michael Saylor’s comments are just ridiculous. He seems to explicitly support the idea of protecting cryptocurrency through regulatory capture, but there are plenty of precedents for that approach failing. I think this is completely against the core principles of cryptocurrency." Vitalik's remarks were a response to Casa co-founder and CTO Jameson Lopp, who had previously warned, "Self-custody of Bitcoin is not the exclusive choice of the paranoid. Convincing people to trust third-party custodians can actually lead to many long-term negative consequences." He emphasized that self-custody is not only crucial for individual Bitcoin holders but is also key to maintaining decentralization, enhancing network security, ensuring governance participation, and driving continuous innovation and expansion without relying on third parties.In contrast to Lopp's views, Saylor advocates for holding Bitcoin through regulated entities like BlackRock, Fidelity, JPMorgan, and State Street. He believes that this approach is not only safer but also reduces volatility and minimizes the risk of losses. Because the government and legislators have investments in these institutions, they are less likely to become targets of government crackdowns compared to unregulated private entities.
