Michael Saylor's comment on 'regulated Bitcoin custody' criticized by Vitalik

According to The Block, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin recently criticized the views of MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor. Saylor recently stated in an interview with The New Zealand Herald that concerns about using regulated entities to host Bitcoin mainly stem from "paranoid cryptocurrency anarchists". He elaborated on the reasons for Bitcoin as a higher quality digital asset and store of value, and advocated that it should be regarded as a "digital currency crucial to human progress". However, his views on regulated custody have sparked strong reactions within the Bitcoin community, particularly from advocates of self custody who have harshly criticized it, with some even questioning whether Saylor truly understands the essence of Bitcoin. In response to this controversy, Vitalik expressed his views on the X platform. He bluntly stated, "I am happy to say that I think Michael Saylor's comments are simply absurd. He seems to clearly support the method of protecting cryptocurrency through regulatory capture, but there are precedents of such methods failing. I believe this completely violates the core principles of cryptocurrency." Vitalik's remarks were a response to Jameson Lopp, co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of Casa. Lopp previously warned that "Bitcoin self custody is not an exclusive choice for paranoid individuals. Convincing people to trust third-party custodians can actually bring many long-term negative impacts." He emphasized that self custody is not only crucial for individual Bitcoin holders, but also key to maintaining decentralization, enhancing network security, maintaining governance participation, and driving continuous innovation and expansion without relying on third parties. Contrary to Lopp's viewpoint, Saylor advocates holding Bitcoin through regulated entities such as BlackRock, Fidelity, JPMorgan Chase, and State Street. He believes that this approach is not only safer, but also reduces volatility and minimizes the risk of losses. Because the government and legislators invest in these institutions, they are less likely to be targets of government crackdowns compared to unregulated private entities.