his answer is bullshit
Full video of Saylor’s nonsense answer for why Microstrategy won’t publish Proof of Reserves.
Every time he opens his mouth of late, he’s giving more reason for Bitcoiners to be skeptical. It might fly with financebros, it won’t with anyone who has studied #Bitcoin.
https://v.nostr.build/eRPWtrluIbxB6usg.mp4
nostr:note106nhek9mgqjsnlas24hk6dmy7nrnp82qnlalw8l37ch46ywa49zqsh5tyg
Discussion
I don't, and won't, own his stock for moral reaons (mostly because I don't want to give blackrock money for them to buy bitcoin), but he's right on his arguments against proof of reserves. It's bad for security (on the technical side) and it doesn't prove liabilities. But for me it's just not your keys, not your coins.
providing on chain proof for the bitcoin they already publicly claim to own does not hurt security at all
Yes it does. 1. It gives more public visibility on the flows of funds and thus whom to target. 2. Plus, you publish the public key, so you remove the extra security that we get from an used btc address (the public key being hashed).
all key employees of mstr, coinbase, anchorage, etc are already targets
proof of reserves does not change that
flow of funds can still be disguised if that is necessary, dont send in to your public wallets until after you announce a buy
can sign ownership proof then move to new addresses if exposing public key is a concern
The ultimate proof of reserves only exists with spot bitcoin or in-kind redeption:
when the custodian allows 24x7x365 FULL withdrawl of all bitcoin into self custody
✅ proof is in the policy, no need for any other *proof*
agreed, i still think proof of reserves will become the standard for public companies with bitcoin treasuries
Maybe it will but I don't think it's wise. Not wise for security of the btc, for the investors, for the employees, and not even wise for us "not your keys, not your coins" humbly stacking privacy-advocating plebs. But maybe that's the way it'll go.
Zero Knowledge proofs. Saylor was correct that doxxing every address is IRL dangerous, and it's all moot anyway if you self custody.
Disagree, it's not enough. Just because there is enough to process the first 50% of withdrawals says nothing about whether the next 50% exists.
Sure, they then would "freeze withdrawls" during the run, which is the same as lying/faking their *proof of reserves* - ie hiding liabilities.
Leaving themselves open to withdrawls ungaurded - to me is a purer signal to the market that they could cover.
I mean, anything's better than nothing I guess! "We don't promise to honor withdrawals in less than 1 month" would be pretty bad. Some hedge funds do stuff like that.
You're also a privacy advocate so I'm surprised to see you suggest that it would be better to make the addresses public. I wouldn't even want that as a precedent that people could point to and say "well, the big guys do it, why can't you".
Is it public knowledge where the MSTR btc are being held? I'm not aware of that but I didn't really look into it. If they're already disclosing that, it's true that it would be less relevant to have the flows tracked. But still, let's say they decide to sell later : if you know what the addresses are and you see them move to an exchange, you could front-run MSTR, etc. It would hurt them getting the maximum value for their investors.
I'll repeat it : I don't invest in any way in MSTR, and I don't want to. But someone who chooses to invest in public markets is accepting those sets of rules.
As for moving the btc to different addresses after the proof of reserves (to not hold btc in addresses for which the public key is known) : wouldn't that pretty much defeat the purposes of the proof of reserves ? In the fiat world, people do that : they get their friends and family to move funds to a bank account just long enough to prove a certain amount in a bank account. The money is redistributed afterwards.
I thought it was pretty good actually.
Without proof of liability, proof of reserve is just feel-good virtue signaling. Dismissing the potential known and unknown downsides of making all the addresses public is shortsighted imo. The only people complaining about this are the same people that tell others not to invest and to only buy Bitcoin and hold in self-custody. He even tells people to just buy Bitcoin and self-custody. The people complaining about this non-issue should follow his advice. Everyone else who is already trusting the team at Strategy to execute has no issues trusting various auditors to verify the assets and liabilities are what the company says they are.
Despite what OPs think, Saylor doesn’t want to share a cell with SBF.
proof of reserves are one piece of due diligence, liabilities still need to be audited
if the public had demanded ftx publish proof of reserves it would have been obvious they had way less bitcoin than they said they did even without proof of liabilities
anyway, im not complaining, there will be plenty of mstr competitors that publish proof of reserves, metaplanet already does, he will likely do it to as well to compete and individuals can always buy real bitcoin directly instead
Here is some insight
in CAPS
BS in caps
so, he is already papering his way into desaster
nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7ct5d3shxtnwdaehgu3wd3skueqpz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqqgpdnpemykljmknpg95y63x4adm27k03vaug5k8rvw43vu07lm587gxwls58 is right (and bold)