Michael Saylor and Samson Mow Clash Over Future Bitcoin Custody Concerns

• Samson Mow disputes Saylor’s view on Bitcoin confiscation, citing the possibility of custodial control over public-held BTC.  
• Saylor dismisses fears of Bitcoin confiscation, labeling OG Bitcoiners “paranoid crypto-anarchists” for holding private keys.  
• Mow warns that the U.S. government could degrade Bitcoin’s value by limiting its utility through institutional custody measures.

Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, recently addressed Michael Saylor’s controversial statements regarding Bitcoin’s potential confiscation by the U.S. government. Saylor, the founder of MicroStrategy, dismissed concerns voiced by Bitcoin veterans, arguing that fears about Bitcoin being confiscated in the future are unfounded. He referenced the 1933 confiscation of gold but claimed the situation was different because the U.S. was on the gold standard at that time. Saylor suggested that Bitcoin’s structure makes such fears unnecessary.

Features of Executive Order 6102 and the Gold Confiscation of 1933

Saylor mentioned that his critics got up collecting that was initiated by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. This order sought to regulate the possession of gold where citizens of the United States surrendered their gold “of their volition” to avoid stiff penalties. The logic behind such action was to provide the Federal Reserve with the means to create new dollars during the great depression. The citizens were being paid $20.37 per ounce then Roosevelt monopolized gold to offer it at $35 per ounce.

Saylor’s Dismissal of Fears About Bitcoin Confiscation

In his interview, Saylor stated that gold in 1933 was not truly confiscated, as people handed it over voluntarily. He criticized Bitcoiners who prefer to keep their private keys due to concerns about custodial confiscation. He referred to them as “paranoid crypto-anarchists,” suggesting that they have an unfounded fear of government interference. Saylor emphasized that the U.S. government cannot easily replicate the events of 1933, as it is no longer backed by a Bitcoin standard.

Mow’s Rebuttal and Concerns Over Bitcoin Custody 

However, Samson Mow disagreed with Saylor’s perspective. He warned that even though the government may not physically confiscate Bitcoin, it could take control through custodial means. Mow suggested that the U.S. government could lock Bitcoin into certain approved custodians and label it as “institutional Bitcoin.” This, in turn, would allow the government to reduce the utility and value of Bitcoin, making it less attractive. 

Mow argued that despite the lack of a Bitcoin standard in the U.S., the government might still have motives to challenge the cryptocurrency. Since Bitcoin’s limited supply directly contradicts the government’s ability to print money indefinitely, this could incentivize actions aimed at degrading its value.