Michael Saylor’s recent comments reveal a concerning shift in his perspective on Bitcoin's role and future. By suggesting that fears of asset seizure through centralized custodianship are irrational, Saylor seems to overlook the very reason Bitcoin was created: to allow individuals to hold sovereign, decentralized money that cannot be manipulated or controlled by third parties, including governments and financial institutions.
Saylor’s apparent endorsement of centralized entities like BlackRock and Fidelity holding Bitcoin assets in regulated environments flies in the face of Bitcoin’s core ethos of decentralization. His dismissal of the risks associated with centralization, particularly regarding seizure or manipulation, is particularly troubling. History has shown, as in the case of Roosevelt’s gold confiscation, that such risks are not hypothetical—they're very real【15†source】【16†source】.
This position also raises the question: Is Saylor more interested in building a business out of Bitcoin than in preserving its true decentralized nature? Bitcoin doesn’t need centralized custodians or institutions; it thrives as a self-sovereign tool of financial freedom. The fact that Saylor is downplaying these concerns suggests a growing alignment with the same centralized systems that Bitcoin was designed to circumvent. This centralization undermines its very value as a hedge against fiat and institutional control.
Ultimately, the community must remain vigilant in resisting attempts to turn Bitcoin into just another centrally controlled asset, managed by the same financial institutions that have caused so much damage with fiat currencies. The future of Bitcoin should not be determined by those seeking to replicate the power structures we’ve spent over a decade working to dismantle.
