I have waited for a company to lose their keys. Key management is very difficult and prone to corruption. I expect larger companies to also lose access to their Bitcoin.
I don't see how these companies don't have large multisig wallets. They could set it up so multiple people could loose their private keys and still be able to access the bitcoin.
Self-custody is obviously the way. But I'm increasingly starting to think that individuals who don't want to take self-custody are better off holding USD in a bank than BTC IOUs on an exchange.
Yes you miss out on BTC's price exposure, but given the sheer number of rugpulls we've seen is the risk-reward profile worth it?
I have waited for a company to lose their keys. Key management is very difficult and prone to corruption. I expect larger companies to also lose access to their Bitcoin.
Be your own bank.
I don't see how these companies don't have large multisig wallets. They could set it up so multiple people could loose their private keys and still be able to access the bitcoin.
I'm glad Swan encourages self-custody, but what does it say about their choice to use them in the first place?
Self-custody is obviously the way. But I'm increasingly starting to think that individuals who don't want to take self-custody are better off holding USD in a bank than BTC IOUs on an exchange.
Yes you miss out on BTC's price exposure, but given the sheer number of rugpulls we've seen is the risk-reward profile worth it?
When does the madness end ;(
Fireblocks.
Poof.
Who else beyond Swan is exposed?
Not your keys, you know the rest already.
Nacho keys, nacho cheese.
How? Lmao.
Who fucked up originally? Prime's old management, new management, or "Fireblocks"?
What they did is bad on some many level, it's just like what FTX did.
deleted by author