Bitrabo Editorial
In a recent interview with journalist Madison Reidy, Michael Saylor, the CEO of MicroStrategy, sparked significant debate within the Bitcoin community regarding the issues of custody and regulation. The conversation highlighted concerns about large institutions possessing hefty amounts of Bitcoin (BTC) and the threats of possible government confiscation or intervention, drawing parallels to historical occurrences such as the 1933 gold confiscation under Executive Order 6102.
Saylor downplayed fears about the risks of third-party custodians managing large quantities of BTC, stating that BTC is actually safer when held by regulated entities such as BlackRock, Fidelity, or JP Morgan, compared to unregulated private holders. He argued that Bitcoin in the hands of “crypto anarchists,” who operate beyond governmental oversight, could lead to higher risks of government involvement.
“I think it’s the opposite. I think that when Bitcoin is held by a bunch of crypto anarchists who aren’t regulated entities, it increases the risk of seizure,” he stated.
He stressed that regulated institutions contribute to stability and trust. “When assets are held by recognized entities like BlackRock, Fidelity, JP Morgan, and State Street Bank, legislators and law enforcement have a vested interest in these institutions. It’s unlikely that lawmakers would seize assets from these entities where they have their retirement funds,” Saylor explained.
Reidy referenced the historical context of gold confiscation under Executive Order 6102 as a precedent for potential government action. Saylor refuted this analogy, calling it a “myth and a trope” propagated by paranoid “crypto anarchists,” arguing that the situations are completely different since the US was once tied to the gold standard, which required gold control to manage the dollar’s value.
“Today, we’re not bound to the gold standard or even a Bitcoin standard,” Saylor mentioned, asserting that the government lacks motivation to seize BTC held in custody any more than it would stocks or real estate. “I believe Bitcoin held in custody isn’t at any greater risk of government seizure than your Apple stock,” he added.
Backlash from the Bitcoin Community
Saylor’s comments faced significant backlash from many Bitcoin advocates who prioritize decentralization and self-custody. Jack Mallers, CEO of Strike, reacted on X, stating, “Labeling self-custody as ‘crypto-anarchism’ oversimplifies the values of Bitcoin, which include freedom—freedom of speech, property rights, and your right to ownership. We must uphold and defend these values.”
While praising Saylor, Mallers highlighted the importance of diverse opinions in a free market. “I aim to defend the principles that make Bitcoin powerful: freedom and individual engagement,” he added.
Sina Nader, co-founder of 21st Capital, criticized Saylor as well: “Saylor’s stance reflects poorly as he supports the government and banking system while belittling genuine Bitcoin enthusiasts. His mission seems aimed at turning Bitcoin into merely an investment rather than a currency.”
Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, warned: “The government doesn’t necessarily need to physically take your Bitcoin; it can just lock custodial BTC indefinitely with approved custodians, effectively creating ‘Institutional Bitcoin.’ A government not aligned with a Bitcoin standard may still have a motivation to undermine Bitcoin.”
Mow argued that governments might want to diminish Bitcoin because of its value as a “superior currency” that could threaten fiat currency systems. He urged individuals to prepare with self-custody solutions and to be vigilant about potential similar actions to Executive Order 6102.
As of the latest update, BTC is trading at $67,707.