251 sats \ 5 replies \ @sethforprivacy 12 May 2023 \ parent \ on: The Bullish Case for Bitcoin Custodians bitcoin
The article is published on a custodians website, not sure how you thought that wouldn't raise obvious red flags.
On the rest: I think I understood your point well and disagree at a fundamental level. You are all for cheering on "good" custodians (like Swan, I assume) as supposedly they bring mass adoption.
I view all custodians as threats to Bitcoin and custodial Bitcoin as simply PayPal 2.0 without any of the intrinsic benefits of Bitcoin.
The literal, described purpose of Bitcoin in the whitepaper is to remove the need for trusted third parties. Re-introducing them and spending thousands of words cheering them on and intentionally denigrating self-custody is not something I'll sit idly by and watch happen.
- Swan is not a custodian.
- Custodial Bitcoin is not Paypal 2.0 - you can withdraw custodial bitcoin to self-custody - cannot do that with Paypal.
Get your facts right.
reply
You can only withdraw bitcoin from swan if swan lets you do that.
I myself run into that issue, when I had to wait days until they allowed my withdrawal. For security reasons of course.
reply
- They are via Prime Trust, their custodian.
- Maybe, maybe not. That's the whole deal with PayPal as well. It might be your money or it might not depending on the whims of the custodian. That is not Bitcoin.
reply
- They are working with a custodian - they are not the custodian, so they are not talking their book, trying to lure people who can self-custody into custody like you suggested.
- The concept of bitcoin banks is almost as old as bitcoin. Hal Finney was one of the first to suggest it. And no matter what you want, they will exist, and for good reason.
reply
Swan outsources their custodianship, which is arguably worse.
reply