If you know about self-custody but you make an informed decision in which you deem yourself not competent enough then that's fine - this is a personal decision. I think that we shouldn't aim for everyone to self-custody, or even "mass adoption", as that sounds like something totalitarian. Bitcoin has always been a choice and as Justin said in another branch of this discussion, an incentive. So I think that only bad things can come from a self-custody standard because it's a tradeoff and it's not a one-size-fits-all. What's important is that you can make the tradeoff if you want to, when it helps you.

However, the benefit of holding Bitcoin has thus far also had an NgU element, and it likely will continue until saturation, whatever that may look like. Don't ask me because I honestly don't know so I just ignore it and "we'll see". I don't think however that it will be El Salvador style legal tender everywhere and forced acceptance. I think that would also not be beneficial so read that as hope more than prophecy, but either way, we have the NgU for now, and with that come parasites, because the yield hustle is real.

That doesn't make treasury companies ok. I expect these to just implode and then everyone gets rekt and we get another chance to buy cheap sats. The point is that between us, we can make Bitcoin work. Even if something as ugly as Lopp's BIP goes through and half of our friends are on a different fork than we find ourselves, we can still make it work (though everyone will probably lose some net worth, but whatevs.) Because bottom line, Bitcoin worked before ETFs and Saylor, and it will work after too.