Replying to Avatar bitcoinlimit

Saylor is speaking to major institutions, not individuals. His audience is corporate, and they aren't interested in the ideals of personal financial autonomy. While small businesses and individuals can use hardware wallets for self-sovereignty, large organizations—such as corporations, pension funds, and wealth funds—require centralized custody solutions.

Whether you accept it or not, this is the reality. For them, Bitcoin-friendly banks with centralized custody services are a necessity unless managing custody themselves is part of their core operations.
Avatar
Radokama Grandmaster Splat 1y ago

I can see centralized holding companies being the ‘reality’. It may be easier for a large companies to use an institution that is simply the wallet holder of many that manages multi-sig/security, holds insurance and charges a fee for the service. In my experience business is about, among other drivers, outperforming the risk of loss of capital to generate unconsumed energy. Isn’t this just the old ‘make or buy’ decision question?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
bitcoinlimit 1y ago

This is a useful perspective for understanding the factors that influence institutional decision-making. Their primary goal is to maximize profit and seize opportunities while effectively managing risk. Self-custody is not a priority for them, nor is it likely to be in the foreseeable future. Instead, they focus on strategies that allow them to generate returns without taking on the complexities or liabilities.