In a recent interview with financial reporter Madison Reidy, Saylor suggested that Bitcoin holders should store their assets with "too big to fail" banks rather than relying on self-custody. He dismissed concerns about government seizures, such as the 1933 illegalization of gold holdings, labeling them as unfounded fears promoted by "paranoid crypto-anarchists." Saylor argued that large financial institutions are better equipped to safeguard Bitcoin, a position that has triggered backlash from advocates of decentralized finance and self-custody.
Vitalik Buterin openly criticized Saylor’s preference for institutional custody, accusing him of promoting a regulatory capture approach to Bitcoin’s future. Buterin noted that Saylor seems to believe regulated entities like BlackRock and Fidelity should hold crypto assets to secure political support. "For me, it’s not what crypto is about," Buterin stated, highlighting how this approach could lead to centralized control, counteracting the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies.
Jameson Lopp, Chief Security Officer at Casa HODL, also weighed in, outlining the risks of institutional custody. He warned that centralizing Bitcoin ownership in large institutions increases the risk of loss or seizure and reduces users' control over the network. Both Lopp and Buterin emphasized that self-custody is essential not only for individual Bitcoin holders but for the long-term health and decentralization of the entire network.