Michael Saylor Backtracks on Big Bank Bitcoin Custody Advice After Facing Heat

• Michael Saylor said he thinks Bitcoin is safer held with institutions like BlackRock.
• Vitalik Buterin believes the real value of crypto is in decentralization and operating outside of legacy finance systems.
• MicroStrategy holds more than 252,00 BTC, the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin.

MicroStrategy boss and ever-bullish on Bitcoin (BTC), Michael Saylor, has walked back some of his comments regarding BTC self-custody, saying he now “supports” it.

Saylor Backtracks

Following a podcast appearance, Saylor caught the ire of crypto and notable industry figures for his controversial comments on self-custody, as well as the “paranoid” crypto community.

Evidently, there’s a small sense of regret from the Bitcoin bull, who has been called out for “capitulation” by onlookers.

The community was surprised to see that Saylor, a Bitcoin Maximalist through and through, could talk down on self-custody, a key element in its creation and philosophy.

Notably, Saylor suggested that Bitcoin holders would be better served if they placed their BTC in the custody of major financial institutions such as BlackRock.

Saylor, of all people, should know that self-custody is a fundamental element of the tech that underpins the Bitcoin philosophy of “becoming your own bank” without needing third-party intermediaries.

Buterin Slams Saylor

Appearing on the “Markets with Madison” podcast, Saylor made some offhand comments about the “paranoid” crypto community, which is concerned with the government seizure of BTC and critical of self-custody and its advocates.

Instead, he suggested that using larger financial custodians like BlackRock would be safer than self-custody.

Saylor, arguably Bitcoin’s most vocal backer, has been called out by the crypto community and Buterin following his unexpected views on Bitcoin, self-custody, and big banks in crypto.

Buterin thinks Saylor’s comments are “batshit insane,” writing :

“He seems to be explicitly arguing for a regulatory capture approach to protecting crypto (“when you have regulated public entities like Blackrock and Fidelity and … holding the asset, all the lawmakers and law enforcement arms are invested in those entities).“

Saylor suggests that big banks will look after your Bitcoin better than you. Furthermore, he hints that BTC, which is held outside of government regulations and tax systems, simply invites greater government intervention.

Rather cynically, Saylor adds:

“There’s no way that all the senators and all the congressmen are going to seize the assets from Fidelity and BlackRock or Vanguard because that’s where all their retirement money is invested.”

Government Seizure

Maddison raises a valid point on trusting banks and refers to the Great Depression, a time when people thought their money and assets were safe with the banks. She argues that history may repeat itself, to which Saylor says:

“It’s mostly paranoid crypto-anarchists that say that, okay?

He then followed this up by explaining that the government didn’t seize people’s gold; they gave it over voluntarily, which isn’t quite right either.

During the Great Depression, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order that required citizens to deliver their physical gold, or gold certificates, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce.

But Saylor still maintains that “it’s not a reasonable comparison.”

“I don’t think we have to worry about Bitcoin held in custody being seized by the Government any more than you have to worry about your Apple stock being seized by the government.”

Though he may be imagining a tyrannical act of power, the government can still seize assets and accounts through legal means. This may be through criminal proceedings, a process known as “dormant accounts, and other means. Simply put, if they want them, the government can and will seize your assets.