- Michael Saylor’s comments on self-custody and crypto regulation have ignited fierce debate within the crypto community
- Vitalik Buterin criticizes Saylor’s views, emphasizing the risks of relying on third-party custodians
- This dispute highlights the broader philosophical divide in the crypto space: technological advocates versus financial asset enthusiasts
Michael Saylor’s words have stirred up a controversy like we haven’t seen in a while, even in a world that thrives on controversies, like Bitcoin and crypto.
Besides the early bitcoiners, also attacking what Saylor has said is Vitalik Buterin, the leader of Ethereum, who called the MicroStrategy chief’s analysis completely insane.
Tough words from someone like Vitalik Buterin, who usually holds very moderate opinions – and he probably didn’t take Saylor’s pro-regulator, pro-third-party custody, and ultimately anti-crypto independence tirade very well.
This is a rift that is unlikely to heal and will highlight the difference in approach between at least two of the souls populating the crypto and Bitcoin world: those who love the technology for what it can offer, and those who love the assets for the returns they could provide.
Vitalik Buterin vs Michael Saylor.
It would be mere gossip if it weren’t for the fact that at the center is one of the most important issues in the Bitcoin world, namely the topic of self-custody and also the vision of this asset as a mere store of value or as part of a broader monetary network.
For those who don’t know, Michael Saylor recently intervened by attacking self-custody, considering it a way of preserving one’s assets that is the stuff of hermits, and more generally attacking the paranoid anarchists who would then be the ideological core of Bitcoin.
Tough expressions that defend a sort of new course for BTC that, however, is not pleasing to everyone: it’s that new course of BTC held by third parties and for many neutralized in its most important functionalities to change the world we live in.
On the subject, Vitalik Buterin also intervened, writing in response to a tweet from Jameson Loop.
It seems he is defending a regulatory capture approach for the protection of crypto (“when you have public and regulated entities like BlackRock and Fidelity… holding the asset, all legislators and law enforcement agencies have investments in these entities”).
There are many precedents that show how this strategy can fail. And for me, it’s not about what crypto can offer.
Conclusion
Michael Saylor and Vitalik Buterin are bringing to light a fundamental debate in the world of cryptocurrencies. While Saylor pushes for greater centralization and custody of crypto assets, Buterin defends the anarchic vision and self-custody.
These divergences not only challenge the underlying philosophies of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies but also invite us to reflect on what we truly want from this ecosystem. It will be interesting to see how these dynamics evolve and which direction the crypto world will take.
And you, which side are you on?
