Vitalik Buterin, a key figure in the Ethereum project, has voiced strong opposition to MicroStrategy President Michael Saylor’s recent suggestions regarding Bitcoin custody. Saylor’s proposal, which advocates for the management of Bitcoin assets by major banks, has ignited significant debate within the cryptocurrency community.
Why Does Buterin Disagree?
Buterin argues that placing trust in large banks contradicts Bitcoin’s core principle of decentralization. He believes that this shift undermines the foundational values that cryptocurrencies strive to uphold.
Initially, Saylor had encouraged Bitcoin enthusiasts to maintain self-custody of their digital assets. However, his recent pivot toward institutional custody raises alarms among supporters of Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos, who worry that this could lead to increased centralization.
What Do Other Experts Say?
Prominent voices such as Jameson Lopp, co-founder of Casa, also challenge Saylor’s view. Lopp cautions that giving control to large entities could introduce additional risks and threaten the integrity of the Bitcoin network. He advocates for self-custody as a means for users to engage in effective network governance.
Critics, including Simon Dixon and John Carvalho, echo Lopp’s sentiments, warning that Saylor’s bank-centric vision might compromise Bitcoin’s potential as a decentralized financial system. Despite the pushback, Saylor remains optimistic about Bitcoin’s trajectory, forecasting a price of $13 million by 2045.
- Buterin emphasizes the importance of decentralization in cryptocurrency.
- Critics express concerns about increasing central control over Bitcoin.
- Experts advocate for self-custody to safeguard Bitcoin’s integrity.
The Bitcoin community remains vigilant regarding Saylor’s institutional custody proposal, fearing it could undermine the decentralized framework that many consider essential for the currency’s future viability.