Maybe it’s because nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqpzfmhxue69uhkummnw3ezua3sdshxjmcpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj7szeqenj, $trategy and BlackRock haven’t realized the following, nostr:nprofile1qqs8cajagp7n48275ytuhzuxn93g2crc0lqgfgx8dta2gjdlh5fpmpqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tc9e972w:

1. A Coinbase IOU ≠ Bitcoin

2. "Not your keys. Not your coins"

3. "Your bitcoin having a custodian is like your girlfriend having a boyfriend"

But BTC/USD, $MSTR and $IBIT are trading around the claims that:

- $trategy got 671,268 BTC at Coinbase

- $IBIT got ₿ 772,584 BTC at Coinbase

- The black box Coinbase haven't been hacked, even though Coinbase went down two times in ~8 days in October (when Amazon Web Services broke 1/3 of the internet)

What’s your insights into this matter nostr:nprofile1qqsvf646uxlreajhhsv9tms9u6w7nuzeedaqty38z69cpwyhv89ufcqpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqcgpfcr?

https://www.bitcoinstrategyplatform.com/etfs

https://bitcointreasuries.net

nostr:nevent1qqsqry7dzvgup763e4w8pedmsupvq5hn3ppz2cpxwlafzxv94h6gc8qpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg6wxkct

nostr:nevent1qqsttm6ew488h82esevpy9ry8dulfzfyzmxr5ru2evaa7xfc4vqdrdqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5cqz6yc

nostr:nevent1qqs8jnpq5929fjnwsrj69szzqlhusshrn6mze9qawt4y48e0882k38sprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctvz3gdxj

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

From Alexander nostr:nprofile1qqsgjeljjrx8wj0a853jldc3pszakar2x87wqc66amzwzydd307gzrgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqscamnwvaz7tmzwf3zu6t04ng80k at nostr:nprofile1qqsrtv3u6qkj6a09tnhr3l0wy67g9uw3t57ftqyqpvztpk3wmd6306spz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvuq3gamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wdau8gu3wv3jhv0g8zkf, that actually delivers on proof-of-reserves AND proof-of-liabilities.

https://river.com/reserves

So you think Coinbase is a possible attack vector / growing risk for the market? Or just the problem not your keys?

Hey, nostr:nprofile1qqsywt6ypu57lxtwj2scdwxnyrl3sry9typcstje65x7rw9a2e5nq8spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9h8qctjdvhxxmmdsxtn6f and nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkc5k2uzc

How many exchanges got proof of reserves and proof of liabilities like nostr:nprofile1qqsrtv3u6qkj6a09tnhr3l0wy67g9uw3t57ftqyqpvztpk3wmd6306spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wcq3gamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k770ssys?

Why not demand that Conba$e starts being transparent with proof of reserves AND proof of liabilities, nostr:nprofile1qqs2xs05tluhtr6hpgsmqqxp04898gayjlyrjlexcrndv8j6el784xqpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj7spp3mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7m0wwmz?

nostr:nevent1qqswa2qe9k3amv04rmcfk7lzx59eh58zt8r6x2pypsvskx57wj5tmyspzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhghgy62w

nostr:nevent1qqsfgn3j2d780pej8953l5fm9yre33usql976dhwms0rsxakeqvrehcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhg02va4t

nostr:nevent1qqsx7rg4kg9aqyq4lqax9s8pfsq8pkgfs4k5lr85hlku68n2rncnm2cprfmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9ukqpqaa7r

This is the core distinction many miss and I’m glad you’re calling this out.

A custodial balance or ETF share is a claim on Bitcoin, not Bitcoin itself. The protocol recognises only UTXOs controlled by private keys, not brokerage statements or fund disclosures.

Centralised custody concentrates risk, shifts price discovery to paper instruments, and recreates the same trust assumptions Bitcoin was designed to remove.

ETFs and treasury companies may increase exposure, but they do not strengthen the network’s monetary properties. Sovereignty, censorship resistance, and verifiability exist only at the protocol layer.

Bitcoin works best when custody, verification, and settlement remain distributed. Everything else is convenience layered on top, with trade-offs.