Quote from: Greyhats on Today at 12:50:15 AM

First of all this isn’t an original idea, I read something somewhere and will definitely go pull the source. The general theme was that as paper bitcoin increase(etfs,dats etc) there will be less circulating bitcoin and thus transactions fees will be impacted negatively. It sounds plausible, I’m a bit stuck on the a holder is a holder no matter where they are self custody or third party, but do you think this will have cause transactions to drop off over time as more adoption happens on the paper side?

It is wrong because it does not make sense at all. Paper Bitcoin increases the amount of circulating Bitcoin or at least it keeps it the same, not the other way around. Only real Bitcoin purchased and taken off of the market removes circulating Bitcoin. Stop reading FUD. If you want to call ETFs transaction killers, then you must call all true holders also transaction killers. Pretty dumb, am I right?

Quote from: 9ja Amaka on Today at 01:55:41 PM

There are several important reasons to why self custody should be prioritized, but its more about personal goals and concerns. If you dont have access to transfer your bitcoin out whenever you want, you are not in control and dont really own your coins. Being your own bank is probably the best.

Most people are not smart or competent enough to self custody, stop pushing this onto people who will lose their coins trying to keep them. Both are valid methods for holding, and each is designed for a different type of person.