Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
Does Bitcoin even give a shit about decentralization anymore? Seems mostly captured by custodians, and only thing that matters is number go up? In some of those cases, you can’t even go from custodial to non-custodial (ETFs).
1 reply
2 recasts
25 reactions
Matt
@hughassle.eth
Custodians are safer for the vast majority of people. Why would that mean they don’t value decentralization?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
The whole genesis of BTC was that we couldn’t trust centralized actors to not screw us over. BTC as a community has worked politically to drive value up and get large centralized actors involved rather than the original P2P vision. Literally in the whitepaper
2 replies
0 recast
4 reactions
Matt
@hughassle.eth
I don’t get why this is mutually exclusive with custodians? Everyone is free to self custody and likely increasingly will in the future. Your vision is clearly as strong as ever
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
As BTC gets into the hands of custodians, they will have an incentive to keep their business which will likely mean tougher to off-ramp over time. The other half of this is it disincentives the base layer to improve because if most of BTC is off chain anyways you can’t even get its benefit (money-ness, primarily) without self custody. To make BTC useful at its base layer it needs innovation, we are unlikely to get there if it’s unnecessary.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Matt
@hughassle.eth
Hmmm interesting points. I still don’t understand the expectation for most people to be self custodying rn. I’m technically literate and it’s pretty complicated and risky for me. I think I’m more likely to lose the funds in my wallet than my cb account
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tayyab - d/acc
@tayyab
I agree it’s more convenient. Because it was made more convenient. Which is definitely good for users. I’m simply saying it’s not what Satoshi wanted.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
