The Culture War Inside Bitcoin Misses the Point

Why Neither Self-Custody Maximalism nor Wall Street Products Can Scale Real Bitcoin Ownership

2020, Money Printing, and the Initial Bitcoin Ethos

I took a greater interest in Bitcoin in 2020 and 2021, a period when fiscal and monetary policy went completely out of control. Trillions of new dollars flooded the financial system in the United States and globally. Prices for everything rose as newly minted currency entered the system. Financial assets continued to set new all-time highs due to the surge of liquidity, and likewise, prices of everyday goods went through the roof.

It was during those times that the Bitcoin ethos began to resonate with me more. A scarce form of money that could not be tampered with by any government or central bank. Money that could protect purchasing power from the dilution of the fiat currencies. Money that could be sent to anyone, anywhere in the world, without risk of censorship by a bank.

In an environment defined by uncertainty and heavy-handed policy, that really spoke to me.

Freedom Money in a World That Felt Less Free

The global lockdowns made this contrast even sharper. Businesses were shut down. Bank accounts were frozen. Movement was restricted under the guise of public health. A monetary system that allowed for individual autonomy and economic freedom became especially compelling.

Bitcoin education at the time reflected this reality. Most content highlighted Bitcoin’s strength as uncensorable and undilutable money.

Self-custody companies were gaining adoption. Podcasts centered on Bitcoin’s merits as a form of freedom grew rapidly. For me, the gap between the fiat system and the ability to hold money outside it was meaningful.

Bitcoin Has Not Changed, but Its Culture Has

It’s now five years later since I took a keen interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself has not changed. The protocol operates exactly as it did five years ago. What has changed is the culture surrounding it. After following the industry and culture closely the past five years and working in the industry for close to three years, I have noticed the shift.

Shift One: The Arrival of Bitcoin ETFs

In early 2024, spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved. This opened the door for investors to access Bitcoin exposure through their brokerage account.

Rather than navigating exchanges and taking on the responsibility of self-custody, investors could get access to the Bitcoin price (not Bitcoin ownership) in a matter of minutes. It brought in people who otherwise would not have gotten any exposure to Bitcoin.

In my opinion, this was a critical step in furthering adoption, but not everyone shared that perspective. In fact, many people still are vehemently against any Wall Streetification of Bitcoin and view ETFs as a threat to Bitcoin’s core properties and a step toward weakening its assurances.

Shift Two: The Rise of Bitcoin Treasury Companies

The second shift arrived in late 2024 and into 2025. MicroStrategy’s playbook for acquiring Bitcoin on its balance sheet inspired hundreds of companies globally to follow the same model. These Bitcoin treasury companies raise capital through debt and equity markets for the sole purpose of accumulating more Bitcoin.

Over the past year, these companies have gained significant traction and now dominate much of the visible culture. Many prominent figureheads and thought leaders in the Bitcoin space have become vocal proponents of the treasury model, and several have joined these companies directly. In-person events, online conferences, and digital communities centered around Bitcoin treasuries have grown rapidly.

This shift has become one of the primary sources of disagreement and tension inside the Bitcoin industry.

The Culture War Inside Bitcoin

On one side are the early users who emphasize keys, sovereignty, and independence from traditional finance.

On the other side are the new participants who build financial products and promote equity exposure to Bitcoin treasury companies.

The tension comes primarily from the self-sovereign crowd. They view these developments as compromising Bitcoin and weakening its foundations.

They believe Bitcoin’s highest use is not inside an ETF or a public company. In many ways, that perspective is accurate and I agree with it.

Where the Self-Custody Maximalists Miss Reality

Many self-custody maximalists also hold unrealistic expectations about how Bitcoin will scale. Some believed we would reach an inflection point in global adoption where Bitcoin simply took over. The idea of hyperbitcoinization was built on this expectation.

What this view misses is that interacting with Bitcoin in a self-sovereign way requires significant personal responsibility and technical competence. Most people will not do this.

Self-custody remains critical. It should be protected and supported. But most people will not self-custody meaningful amounts of Bitcoin, especially as balances grow. The risks related to loss, device failure, inheritance, and physical security only increase as the asset appreciates.

Where ETFs Fall Short

ETFs solve convenience and access, but at the cost of Bitcoin’s defining properties. If most people only experience Bitcoin as a ticker in a brokerage account, they lose the core benefits. They miss out on Bitcoin ownership and the benefits of having money outside of the traditional financial system.

That said, more financialization is inevitable. Wall Street is going to continue to create more products around this asset, and there’s not much we can do to stop it; however, we can provide alternatives.

The Middle Path the Culture War Is Missing

The culture war treats Bitcoin adoption as a binary choice. Either everyone holds their own keys or Bitcoin has failed. This framing ignores reality. There will always be far more people willing to own a Bitcoin ETF than manage their own private keys, and building a future around universal self-custody is not realistic.

What is needed is a path that lowers the barriers to owning Bitcoin while still preserving the qualities that make the asset unique.

That path is multi-institution custody.

Why Multi-Institution Custody Is the Only Scalable Model That Enables True Bitcoin Ownership

Right now, Bitcoin ownership is treated as an all-or-nothing decision. You either self-custody and take full responsibility for managing your keys, or you hand everything over to a single company and hope they never get hacked, shut down, or pressured by outside forces. The fact that these two extremes have been the primary options shows how early we still are in building real Bitcoin infrastructure.

Multi-institution custody offers a better path. Instead of one person or one company holding all the responsibility, the control of your Bitcoin is shared across several independent businesses. No single company can move your Bitcoin, lose it, or be compromised in a way that puts your savings at risk. It removes the single point of failure that exists in exchanges and ETFs while avoiding the complexity and stress of managing self-custody on your own.

Most importantly, it still preserves what makes Bitcoin valuable. You continue to own actual Bitcoin, not a claim on Bitcoin. You can still send it to anyone, anywhere in the world. You can still hold money outside of the traditional banking system. But now you can do it with far less operational risk, using a model that scales to millions of people who will never manage their own self-custody setup.

Multi-institution custody gives people confidence that their Bitcoin is safe, even if one custodian goes offline or a single provider faces issues. And it gives peace of mind to those who do not want to become technical experts just to hold their savings.

It is the first model that makes real Bitcoin ownership accessible without sacrificing the qualities that matter.

Without It, The Culture War Has Already Lost

If Bitcoin native infrastructure like multi-institution custody does not become the standard, the culture will drift toward Wall Street and legacy financial products.

Most people will always choose convenience over operational complexity. If the industry does not provide a credible alternative, Bitcoin will be shaped by the same structures it was built to move beyond.

This is the part that the self-custody maximalists have not fully recognized. Their concerns about true Bitcoin ownership are valid. Their solution is not.

If we expect a global monetary asset to scale only through people managing their own keys, we will fail; likewise, if we hand the keys to the ETF sponsors, we will fail.

Multi-institution custody is the only model that solves both problems simultaneously.

Bitcoin Must Migrate Toward Resilient Custody

Throughout history, assets that matter migrate toward more resilient forms of custody. Gold did. Financial assets did. Bitcoin will do the same.

The culture war is a distraction. The real task is preserving Bitcoin’s core properties as adoption grows and the stakes rise.

The answer is not self-custody maximalism, nor is it Wall Street products. The answer is a custody model that distributes risk, preserves ownership, and scales with the asset itself.

This is how you grow true Bitcoin ownership and avoid a future where Bitcoin becomes just another financial product, all the while resolving the culture war that has pulled the industry off course.

Please leave a “like” if you got value from this article, it helps me grow the publication.

Agree or disagree? Let me know in the comments below. If this post resonated with you, share it with someone you think would enjoy it.