Nostr Web Client

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.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

it would be the same if it was physical gold

Satosha 1y ago

Yes .. If you could make gold portable on communication channels , you wouldn't need Bitcoin .. wait ..isn't that what Bitcoin is ..

William ₿ Travis 1y ago

This is the thing the nostr freakout is missing. Different interests have to see the value prop on their terms. Saylor isn't an idiot. He is appealing to a group that needs the exposure he can provide while also being assured they aren't investing in a threat to the government or the system.

It was always going to go this way.

O Expedicionário 1y ago

Idealistic radicals have the tendency to get kinda disappointed when reality hits. And reality is strongly suggesting that Bitcoin success also means that institutional investors are here to stay, whether we like it or not. I get more worried about nihilistic radials willing to set the world on fire for their idea of what Bitcoin should be than about corporate capture of large amounts of BTC. Dealing with the inherit freedom of permissionless protocols is not always an easy thing to deal with. Time to grow up, and keep building!

William ₿ Travis 1y ago

Good point. "If it doesn't happen my way, I will burn you all down" is leftist thinking.

bitcoinlimit 1y ago

The good news is that #Bitcoin offers both. Anyone can self-custody their Bitcoin, which I highly recommend. However, mocking corporations and wealth funds for offering Bitcoin to their clients with easier custody solutions isn’t the right approach to drive Bitcoin adoption. Instead, we should welcome these efforts, as they help bring more people into the Bitcoin ecosystem.

O Expedicionário 1y ago

💯 I do hope that self-custody remains a viable alternative despite recent transactions costs peaks, as i care about self-sovereignty deeply, but institutions are here to stay. It would be great if people could moderate their appetite for destruction of what they disagree with and concentrate on building and including people instead.

goatmeal 1y ago

we don't need to be inclusive about backdoor fractional reserve banking

O Expedicionário 1y ago

Who is “we”… fortunately Bitcoin is permissionsless protocol with no authoritarian entity deciding what “we” should be or do, because it amazes me how many people interested in freedom turn into tyrants the minute things do not go their way

goatmeal 1y ago

you are free to get rugged by custodians

O Expedicionário 1y ago

Too many assumptions

772f9545... 1y ago

If Bitcoin's value does not come from its utility as a medium of exchange, it is essentially a Ponzi scheme. At least with gold you can use the gold as a decoration. No such property is present for Bitcoin. As long as some people somewhere can use Bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash, it will be valuable to them, and on this basis custodians, institutions, and governments can hold it without a contradiction. On the other hand, if Bitcoin is exclusively the property of custodians, institutions, and governments, who do not seek to use it as a medium exchange, and who bar everyday people from using it as a medium of exchange, Bitcoin's value should be roughly zero in the long run. It lost its utility. I want Bitcoin or something like it to become money along with gold and silver. Fiat currencies are the problem and Bitcoin is a potential solution. I think if you are in Bitcoin for a buck you're just scamming the folks who buy it from you in the future.

772f9545... 1y ago

I should qualify the "in Bitcoin for a buck" with "AND are OK with it becoming exclusively the property of gatekeepers" because it really is nice to make a buck and there's nothing wrong with that.

kc 1y ago

Yup! I was starting to think I was the only one that saw this.

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?

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.

BitLo 1y ago

Saylor is a realist in this regard.