pull down to refresh
No, Coldcard wasn't custodial. It had a major flaw that allowed theft. That's different than a custodial situation like Liquid where even if it doesn't have a flaw, the thing that users hold is not actually bitcoin.
but it did have the flaw, just like liquid doesn't have unilateral exit, we have to deal with what is, not what we want it to be!
sure, but a flaw doesn't make something custodial. holding one asset (L-BTC) while someone else (the Liquid Federation) holds the BTC makes it custodial.
same for ecash: doesn't matter if there is a vulnerability in a mint's implementation or not: it's custodial because mint users hold ecash tokens and the mint operator holds the bitcoin.
with coldcard, the users held their own bitcoin...until someone stole it from them. If you get bitcoin stolen from you because someone finds your seed phrase backup, it doesn't mean you were in a custodial situation -- it means you were the victim of theft.
If you don't have unlateral exist, I don't think you can be self custodial!
You're only self-custody the key to a claim that still requires the 3rd party to enforce the claim.
But then again 2026 has thrown out all the rules, was COLDCARD custodial, if you have someone who can guess your private keys from a set range of possible combinations?