In a recent interview with journalist Madison Reidy, MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor ignited a storm of controversy within the Bitcoin community with his statements on Bitcoin custody and government regulation. His comments centered on the risks of institutions holding large amounts of Bitcoin, the possibility of government intervention, and the lessons (or lack thereof) from historical events like the 1933 gold confiscation under Executive Order 6102.
Bitcoin in the Hands of Institutions vs. Individuals
When asked about the dangers of entrusting a significant portion of BTC to third-party custodians and large institutions, Saylor downplayed concerns about increased seizure or confiscation. He argued that Bitcoin is more secure in the hands of regulated public entities such as BlackRock, Fidelity, and JP Morgan than in the possession of unregulated private holders. Saylor suggested that when Bitcoin is held by “crypto anarchists” who operate outside government regulations and tax systems, it poses a higher risk of government intervention.
Saylor emphasized the stability and reliability provided by regulated institutions. He stated, “When you have regulated public entities like BlackRock, Fidelity, JP Morgan, and State Street Bank holding the asset, all the lawmakers and all the law enforcement arms are invested in those entities. 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.”
Become the smartest crypto enthusiast in the room
Get the top 50 crypto definitions you need to know in the industry for free
Referring to the gold confiscation under Executive Order 6102 during the Great Depression, Saylor dismissed the comparison as a “myth and a trope” perpetuated by paranoid “crypto anarchists.” He argued that the current circumstances are fundamentally different as the US is not on the gold standard or the Bitcoin standard. Saylor claimed that the US government has no incentive to seize BTC held in custody any more than it would seize stocks or real estate.
However, Saylor’s remarks did not sit well with many members of the Bitcoin community who value principles of decentralization and self-custody. Jack Mallers, CEO of Strike, responded by stating, “Calling self-custody ‘crypto-anarchism’ oversimplifies what Bitcoin accomplishes. It’s about freedom—freedom of speech, property rights, and protecting your right to own what’s yours.”
Sina Nader, co-founder of 21st Capital, criticized Saylor for aligning with the government and banking system, accusing him of attempting to diminish Bitcoin’s utility as a currency. Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, warned of potential government interventions that could undermine Bitcoin, urging the community to prepare for such scenarios.
Disclaimer: Please note that the contents of this article are not financial or investing advice. The information provided in this article is the author’s opinion only and should not be considered as offering trading or investing recommendations. We do not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. The cryptocurrency market suffers from high volatility and occasional arbitrary movements. Any investor, trader, or regular crypto users should research multiple viewpoints and be familiar with all local regulations before committing to an investment.
