pull down to refresh
82 sats \ 16 replies \ @Scoresby OP 22 Jul \ parent \ on: OnRamp guy says self-custody is the reason mass adoption hasn't happened bitcoin
Right, there's so many great wallets and different ways to do it. But it also seems true that self custody is not catching on the same way ETF/treasury company stuff is.
It won't catch on if people don't see the need or desire it. That's the root issue. Not the tech.
reply
People will need to get burned first. Then they will learn.
I generally agree: people only make changes to major systems of their lives when they are forced to (ie you get debanked or sanctioned or just lose your saving to inflation).
However, some of these things really are happening. People are buying the ETF and MSTR because they think it will make them rich. Okay, but they conceivably could do the same thing with bitcoin on Coinbase or whatever. Bu t mostly they aren't. So there is some tech issue here.
reply
People are buying the ETF and MSTR because they think it will make them rich. Okay, but they conceivably could do the same thing with bitcoin on Coinbase or whatever. Bu t mostly they aren't.
I disagree with you there. I would separate the ETF and MSTR as far as their general perception out there in the masses that actually actively trade or have retirement accounts. ETFs are a known thing and trusted more than these exchanges like Coinbase. There is far less friction and more of a feeling of familiarity with the tradfi stuff vs. the web stuff(Coinbase).
I think that changes over time. That said, I am pretty sure there are more investor protections and regulations on ETFs and even MSTR that Coinbase. I could be wrong on that but at the least this is the perception.
Most of us are so far removed from this way of thinking that many stackers will start calling me names for even talking like this but I try to listen to tradfi radio and talk to people about things like this who are not bitcoiners. We are on a whole other wave length than normies. Most bitcoiners were already on a different level of thinking before they adopted bitcoin. I know I was. I'd read Ron Paul, Mises, and many others. I was skeptical of Wallstreet and against the FED. The people like that have already been reached. Now its the rest of the world.
I really think we have to push back on this false idea that the masses are gonna become crypto-anarchists. Its never gonna happen. But where I differ from others that believe this... I don't think we need to change bitcoin. Like there's something wrong with it. We don't need to water it down.
reply
Being able to listen and actually hear the tradfi viewpoint is a huge benefit to Bitcoin land. I am always a little startled when I talk about finance/investing with my friends who are not bitcoiners. You are spot on that we get down in the rabbit hole and forget that it's a pretty niche little world and not everybody thinks like this.
When I've listened to some of the OnRamp folks talk about their products, they say a lot of sane things: self-custody is too scary, unfamiliar for most people in the market right now, certainly a heavy lift for family offices and high net worth types. It's not like they are way off base there (but I do think they are off base when they start acting like giving your bitcoin to some institutions is greater than or equal to self-custody).
But I do wonder what the implications of this kind of thinking are.
this false idea that the masses are gonna become crypto-anarchists
Sure. I see this. What I want to know is 1) does this also mean the masses are never going to self-custody, and if so 2) does this change the security model of bitcoin?
reply
I think what we need is patience. In a generation or two self-custody may become more likely. From what I see... people my age and older are not gonna do it on mass. It has implications for sure. I'm not sure I'm ready to change bitcoin because of this tough. I think we need patience.
Its not that people CAN'T self custody. Its laziness. I don't see how you can expect people that refuse to manage passwords securely to self-custody.
reply
I wasn't suggesting we attempt any change to bitcoin, rather that we should check our assumptions: if censorship resistance is built on the idea that bitcoiners will run nodes that enforce the rules, those bitcoiners need to have the keys to some bitcoin in order to make that real.
Sure, the ETF holders can raise a stink, but how would they even know what rules Blackrock is running on whatever node verifies the bitcoin it buys?
I know a few people that got into crypto last cycle. Some that bought pretty significant amounts. Not a single one did self custody. Its not even a thought that crosses their minds from what I gather. I offered to help one and he had no interest.
Not because its too hard. Its not like they were trying to do it and were scared. They just didn't care enough to even investigate it. Most people with means or even a decent retirement plan have investment accounts with work. The level of friction to get "crypto exposure" in that known system that they think is pretty secure is near zero.
No way you make anything self-custody like that. Its a dumb target IMO. The tech / apps / hardware will improve but this isn't something wrong with bitcoin IMO.
reply
Last paragraph. Yes.
reply
Bitcoin's also for folks who don't wanna be their own bank. Everyone just does what they think is best for them. Being sovereign comes with a lot of responsibility, and a lot of people just ain't about that life.
reply
reply
Just ask people "do you love the government? Do you like having them control your money"
There will be a common consensus then.
reply
Is there a threshold number of self-custody bitcoiners below which the system breaks down? Like, if absolutely no individuals hold their own keys, who would prevent some industry group from advocating for protocol changes none of us like?
reply
I can't put a number on it. I've heard about this with the BlackRock ETF, though.
reply