For years, Michael Saylor, the Executive Chairman of MicroStrategy and a major advocate for Bitcoin, has promoted self-custody (where individuals maintain control over their digital assets without a third-party) as the safest way to protect one’s Bitcoin. However, Saylor recently suggested that Bitcoin holders might be better off entrusting their assets to big banks. This shift in stance has sparked outrage in the crypto community causing Saylor to have to clarify his statement. 

‍

The Controversy Begins

In an interview with financial reporter Madison Reidy, Michael Saylor claimed that Bitcoin holders have "nothing to lose" by storing their assets with “too big to fail” banks. These banks were large financial institutions that are considered so essential to the economy that they would likely be bailed out by the government if they were to face financial trouble. His comments seemed to contradict his earlier stance in the matter, in which he had strongly advocated for self-custody and warned against the risks of centralized control over Bitcoin. 

By backing institutional custody over personal control, Saylor argued that established financial institutions offer a safer alternative to hardware wallets (devices that store Bitcoin offline to protect against hacking). He went so far as to label fears of government confiscation of Bitcoin as “paranoia” fueled by what he called “paranoid crypto-anarchists.” 

Many in the crypto community were quick to criticize this shift, viewing it as a step backward for Bitcoin’s decentralized vision. Among the most vocal was Simon Dixon, an early Bitcoin supporter and author of Bank to the Future. Dixon warned that Saylor’s stance could undermine Bitcoin’s core principle of financial freedom by encouraging reliance on institutions that Bitcoin was designed to avoid.

‍

Bitcoin's Purpose: Investment or Currency?

One of the major points of contention is whether Saylor’s approach redefines Bitcoin as an investment asset rather than a currency. Bitcoin’s community largely views it as a way to bypass traditional banking systems, a form of “digital cash” controlled solely by its owner. Sina, founder of Bitcoin custody firm 21st Capital, argued that Saylor’s comments suggest he’s treating Bitcoin as an “investment pet rock,” something to be held passively rather than used as a currency. 

John Carvalho, CEO of Bitcoin payments firm Synonym, also spoke out, questioning Saylor’s vision. In the past, Saylor had referred to Bitcoin as “hope” for people looking to escape centralized financial systems. Now, however, Carvalho felt that Saylor was disregarding the concerns of those who support self-custody, portraying them as overly paranoid.

‍

Institutional Custody for Institutions Only?

Not everyone in the crypto space was critical of Saylor’s comments. Some, like Julian Figueroa, founder and host of Get Based, suggested that Saylor’s remarks were aimed at institutional clients rather than individual Bitcoin holders. While self-custody is manageable for individuals and small businesses using hardware wallets, larger organizations with extensive Bitcoin holdings might face logistical challenges. Banks could potentially serve as a more practical custodian for such institutions, offering a level of security and infrastructure that smaller firms may lack.

Mitchell Askew, a head analyst at Bitcoin mining firm Blockware Solutions, took a different perspective. He argued that Saylor might be willing to bear the criticism if it helps Bitcoin seem “less sketchy” to mainstream investors and regulatory bodies. By promoting institutional custody, Saylor might be trying to make Bitcoin more appealing to traditional investors, which could ultimately benefit the cryptocurrency in the long run.

‍

Vitalik Buterin Weighs In

‍

This debate even attracted the attention of Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who has often been a vocal supporter of crypto decentralization. Buterin responded to Saylor’s comments with sharp criticism, describing Saylor’s views as “batshit insane.” He argued that by encouraging regulatory capture (where large institutions gain influence over a market to ensure favorable treatment from lawmakers) Saylor was betraying Bitcoin’s founding principles.

Buterin acknowledged that he had once supported similar ideas, promoting the notion of Bitcoin as a “mountain man’s asset,” where self-reliance was emphasized. However, he now feels that technological advancements, such as zero-knowledge proofs (snarks) and account abstraction, have shifted the conversation, making personal control of assets more accessible and practical than it once was.

‍

Saylor Clarifies His Position

In response to the backlash, Saylor attempted to clarify his views on X (formerly Twitter). “I support self-custody for those willing & able, the right to self-custody for all, and freedom to choose the form of custody & custodian for individuals & institutions globally,” he tweeted. Saylor explained that Bitcoin should be accessible to a wide range of investors, including both individuals and institutions. He further stated that Bitcoin’s success relies on a diversity of participants and that the network should welcome all types of investments.

This clarification seems to suggest that Saylor isn’t entirely dismissing self-custody; rather, he’s advocating for flexibility in custody options, allowing each investor to choose what works best for them.

‍

Why this Matters?

The uproar surrounding Saylor’s comments highlights an ongoing issue within the crypto community: Should Bitcoin remain a tool for individual financial sovereignty, or is it destined to become part of the traditional financial system? 

For some, Bitcoin’s true potential lies in its ability to disrupt banking and finance, empowering individuals to hold their assets independently. For others, institutional support could be essential to Bitcoin’s long-term success by ensuring it receives regulatory support and broader acceptance. Ultimately, the future of Bitcoin custody may lie in a balanced approach, where individuals can maintain self-custody if they wish and institutions that require greater security can choose bank custodianship. 

‍