Michael Saylor, the co-founder of MicroStrategy and a prominent advocate for Bitcoin, has reversed his earlier remarks regarding self-custody of Bitcoin following significant backlash from the cryptocurrency community.
In a post on X (formerly Twitter) on October 23, 2024, Saylor stated, “I support self-custody for those willing and able, the right to self-custody for all, and freedom to choose the form of custody and custodian for individuals and institutions globally.”
Saylor’s initial comments suggested that Bitcoin holders should trust their assets to major banks, which he referred to as “too big to fail” institutions engineered to be custodians of financial assets.
This statement drew criticism from various figures in the crypto community, including Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, who challenged Saylor’s views on self-custody.
The backlash intensified after Saylor labeled some members of the community as “paranoid crypto-anarchists.” Notable responses included Max Keiser, who remarked that Saylor’s comments indicated a regressive tendency favoring centralized banking systems over the decentralized ideals of Bitcoin.
In his follow-up post, Saylor aimed to clarify his position by emphasizing that Bitcoin benefits from all forms of investment and should welcome participation from various entities. He reiterated his belief in the importance of self-custody as a fundamental right for individuals.
While some industry influencers welcomed Saylor’s reversal, others viewed it as a capitulation. Joel Valenzuela, a marketer for Dash, criticized Saylor for revealing what he termed “true colors,” while others in the community expressed skepticism about his motivations.
Saylor’s change of opinion showcase the ongoing debates within the cryptocurrency community regarding custody solutions. The tension between centralized custodial services and self-custody remains a critical issue as more investors enter the market.
While self-custody offers users greater control over their assets, it also comes with risks, such as the potential for loss due to hacks or user error. The debate highlights the need for education around secure self-custody practices.