The CEO of Microstrategy shocked a large part of the Bitcoin following, freedom and privacy advocates by claiming that a bunch of paranoid crypto anarchists are the only ones advocating for self-custody of Bitcoin. Did he forget that Satoshi was one of them?
During a YouTube discussion with NZ Herald senior business journalist Madison Reidy, Saylor criticized those promoting Bitcoin self-custody, labeling them as “paranoid crypto anarchists”. This unexpected statement left many in the Bitcoin space shocked. Self-custody is seen as a core tenet of the Bitcoin ethos. Something that ensures decentralization and freedom from financial intermediaries.
In his comments, Saylor went on to make a historically inaccurate claim regarding the Executive Order 6102, which required U.S. citizens to hand over their privately held gold to the government in 1933. He implied that this order was a “voluntary” action, neglecting to mention the heavy fines and penalties for non-compliance.
The order resulted in widespread confiscation of gold, and several individuals and companies were prosecuted under various related Executive Orders. Notably, Frederick Barber Campbell, a New York attorney, attempted to withdraw over 5,000 troy ounces of gold from Chase National Bank, only to have the bank refuse the withdrawal and report him to federal authorities. Though the prosecution of Campbell failed, the federal government still confiscated his gold, setting a chilling precedent for financial seizure.
Jack Mallers, a prominent advocate for Bitcoin, responded to recent criticisms of self-custody by emphasizing that labeling it as “crypto-anarchism” misses the broader significance of Bitcoin. According to Mallers, Bitcoin represents far more than just a financial tool. It embodies fundamental freedoms such as speech, property rights, and the ability to own and protect one’s assets. He stresses that freedom is not a given. It must be actively defended and preserved.
While Mallers acknowledges his friendship with Michael Saylor, whose comments sparked the debate, he points out that in any revolutionary and truly free market like Bitcoin, differing views are not only expected but essential. Despite their differences, Mallers emphasizes that his aim is to uphold the principles that make Bitcoin powerful: the freedom for individuals to engage with it on their own terms.
Saylor’s comments triggered a backlash, with prominent figures in the Bitcoin community voicing their concerns. Erik Voorhees, a leading advocate for decentralized finance, criticized Saylor for his dismissive attitude toward self-custody, arguing that self-custody is “the entire point” of Bitcoin. Voorhees explained that while not every Bitcoin holder needs to self-custody all their assets, they should at least understand how to do so and be able to withdraw their Bitcoin from third-party custodians when necessary. According to Voorhees, the very ability to self-custody one’s Bitcoin acts as a safeguard against the centralization and corruption inherent in other financial systems.
Jameson Lopp, another well-known figure in the Bitcoin space, added historical context by pointing out that most gold confiscations under Executive Order 6102 occurred at financial institutions, like in the case of Frederick Barber Campbell. Those who kept their gold in self-custody were, in fact, able to avoid confiscation. This reinforces the argument that Bitcoin’s self-custody feature provides essential protection against potential future government overreach.
Criticism of Saylor’s remarks also came from Giacomo Zucco, who suggested that Saylor’s stance mirrors that of a “statist boomer” aligning with traditional financial institutions. Zucco and others hinted that Saylor’s perspective, while aligning Bitcoin more closely with mainstream financial systems, risks undermining its original purpose as a decentralized currency designed to resist censorship and control.
Meanwhile, Sina, co-founder of 21st Capital, expressed concern that Saylor’s position shifts Bitcoin away from its use as a currency and towards an “investment pet rock,” reducing its revolutionary potential in the process. Similarly, Joe Nakamoto highlighted the relevance of Saylor’s comments in light of the ever-present fear of another Executive Order 6102, stressing the importance of self-custody as a precaution against such government actions.
Perhaps most damning was a critique by Magoo, PhD, who pointed out the hypocrisy in Saylor’s remarks. While dismissing self-custody advocates as “paranoid,” Saylor himself is promoting Bitcoin as a yield-bearing investment product. This appears contradictory, as Saylor is pushing a product tied to Bitcoin’s fixed supply, while criticizing those who advocate for self-sovereignty over their own assets.
Joel Valenzuela, a business developer for Dash Pay, has sharply criticized Michael Saylor for his comments on Bitcoin self-custody. Valenzuela calls out Saylor, referring to him as the leading voice for Bitcoin, while mocking Saylor’s stance that people should trust government institutions and custodial services rather than securing their Bitcoin independently.
Valenzuela ridicules Saylor’s portrayal of those advocating for self-custody as “paranoid crypto anarchists” and accuses him of being a “profit-driven scammer.” He suggests that those who remain silent or support Saylor are complicit in undermining Bitcoin’s core principles of decentralization and self-sovereignty. Valenzuela’s tweet concludes with a somber note, claiming that Bitcoin is “completely dead inside” if its essence of financial independence is sacrificed, regardless of its market price.
There are of course opposing views. A certain part of the Bitcoin base think that the reaction to the comments is missguided and out of proportion. Others believe that Saylor is playing a form of 4D Chess to spread Bitcoin adoption. And there is a portion of the audience that thinks the comments were well placed and aimed at institutional investors that think alike.
Saylor’s comments have shocked and sent ripples through social media. He started a fierce debate within the Bitcoin community about the importance of self-custody and the dangers of centralized control over digital assets. For many, Bitcoin’s value lies in its capacity to grant individuals true ownership over their wealth, free from the reach of governments and financial institutions.
By downplaying this crucial aspect of Bitcoin, Saylor has contradicted himself with previous statements. He has now positioned himself at odds with a significant portion of the loyal Bitcoin maxis but also many others in the blockchain space that have the same beliefs. Labelling people, intentionally or not, his remarks have restarted a huge debate over the future of Bitcoin’s role in finance and society. Calling Bitcoin maxis, crypto anarchists has certainly not gone down well, at all.
Author Profile
- I have been writing articles about finance, the stock market and wealth management since 2008. I have worked as an analyst, fund manager and as a junior trader in 7 different institutions.
Latest entries
- April 24, 2025NewsWireCapital One-Discover Merger Reshaping the Credit Card Industry
- April 15, 2025NewsWireMichael Saylor’s Strategy New $286 Million Bitcoin Purchase
- February 14, 2025NewsWireBreaking Down the U.S. Budget
- November 14, 2024NewsWireCorporate Earnings, Stock Movements & Economic Trends