The insurance is meant for operational fuck-ups, if their entire portfolio of insurees get pwned that's Force majeure.

Cope harder shitcoiner. 

> Taproot being a huge mistake and relatively new, storing large amounts of coin in a tapscript isn't aligned to a risk-averse strategy either.

This is hilarious and ridiculous FUD given the bitcoin you deposit with anchorwatch is literally insured. 

nevermind

This would defeat the purpose imo, may as well just use an insured custodian if you're doing "self-custody" with their infrastructure.

I think the product makes more sense for company treasuries where the investors demand this to mitigate key-man risk

Taproot being a huge mistake and relatively new, storing large amounts of coin in a tapscript isn't aligned to a risk-averse strategy either.

AskSN

Would you insure your Bitcoin using AnchorWatch?

BlokchainB

> You have to use their hardware devices

This would defeat the purpose imo, may as well just use an insured custodian if you're doing "self-custody" with their infrastructure.

I think the product makes more sense for company treasuries where the investors demand this to mitigate key-man risk

Taproot being a huge mistake and relatively new, storing large amounts of coin in a tapscript isn't aligned to a risk-averse strategy either.