That was more than just an attack, it actually created that kind of narrative against self custody. If you look it up anywhere in the internet today, you can see a lot of people discussing how disappointed about the incident and distrusted the use of self custody.
Instead of trying to understand how to improve security, they tend to suggest moving to a different type of storage, like ETFs and non custodial wallets, totally forgetting they are also losing control over their assets.

They just have to wait until similar thing happen outside self custody and they will realize how risky it is.

That's right, OP. I see this in the channels where there is a discussion of what happened and in the question "Who can I trust now?" I seem to see bots answering the same way, that it is useless to believe in your "strong" hands and strength now. "Trust centralization," and we, in turn, will control you. This is what governments strive for so that not a single dollar, and in this case, Satoshi, does not fly by without their attention. People who lose significant amounts become mouthpieces for those who support the idea of centralization, thereby introducing newcomers into a complete misunderstanding of what is happening. But sane people are obliged to trust and verify any information, filtering everything that they consider to be specially organized for provocations.

Nah, this attack was planned so that the hackers could steal 40 million dollars worth of crypto(I forgot the exact amount). I have doubts that the ColdCard hackers thought "hey, lets hack this wallet, so that all the crypto enthusiasts start questioning self custody". The ColdCard case proves that no technology is perfect. Every piece of technology has it's flaws, but everyday improvement keeps going and the companies, who fall behind at improving their products and services end up in ruins. I find it weird that the ColdCard hack caused so much FUD on the forum. Some forum trolls are posting BS about the ColdCard hack "starting a revolution" and being the first nail in the coffin for Bitcoin. That's just absurd.

Most definitely! Blames should be about Coldcard for not being up to date about their weaknesses and also predict or detect possible attacks like this on their firmware.
Yeah, I believe this is just a bankers sponsored agenda against Bitcoin one way or the other or this is simply just me making predictions.
But then again, the victims of this particular Coldcard and thought they was doing something worthy and worthwhile. They followed all the process to protect their seed phrase only to end up with such fatal  compromise. I cannot say how I will react, if I lost 7btc of my crypto holdings.

Self Custody also the best. It should be considered unwise to switch towards banks and centralised exchanges after this.

I'm sure a lot of Coldcard victims no longer believe in the self-custody mantra or maybe even in the BTC network, but who can blame them? Losing everything you've worked for surely has its effect on the victims. Take note that we would have also blamed them if they had lost these funds through a centralized or custodial service.

Do i still believe in self-cusody and in BTC? 100%, but i cannot predict in what state of mind i would be in if i lost all the coins i have worked so hard to save. Self custody is reliable and i would always recommend it, but i am also human to understand how people would naturally react when they lose all their money--not of their own error-- in a hardware wallet of all places.

Just because of what happened recently, we should not forget the meaning of “not your keys, not your coins.”

If you trust your coins to a third party, maybe its more secure in one way because they are regulated and responsible for the agreement between you and them. But at the same time, you also lose some privacy and control over your own funds. So both options have positive and negative side.

For me, I would still choose self custody. It may also have risks, but as long as I protect my keys properly, that's still the safer option for me.
it does not mean what happen to ColdCard hardware wallet could happen to other wallet.

I don't think the hackers' actions were aimed at discrediting the very idea of ​​self custody of Bitcoin. That statement sounds too much like a conspiracy theory.🙋

I think it's actually simpler... The hackers wanted to gain economic profit. They were driven by purely mercenary considerations. This, in my opinion, is a major cybersecurity problem. You can be attentive and careful for years, but it only takes one mistake for disaster to occur. Essentially, this is the price you pay for freedom and independence. It must be acknowledged that not everyone is willing to pay such a price.

Another thing is that centralized platforms will undoubtedly exploit this situation to discredit the idea of ​​self custody of Bitcoin. We need to be prepared for this.

This is simply a signal to all of us. We need to gradually complicate our Bitcoin storage system. This isn't a story about self custody of coins being bad. This is a story about trusting other people's software being bad.  You only need to trust yourself. But to do that, you have to become paranoid yourself. We have to know and be able to do a lot to trust ourselves.🧖

What happened with Coldcard users are different. It's not like their practice were wrong in security, and they did everything right like many guides on how to use wallets. It's only the Coldcard wallet is crap and they had a severe security hole for hackers to exploit, and Coldcard users can not do anything.

It's only their responsibility to believe in a bad hardware wallet but as users, who know that is bad before this hack. They read reviews about Coldcard, that is good and they buy it to use.

Your opinion like "self custody isn't for everyone" is not right in this discussion. It is right in general as newbies are not people who should quickly go non custodial by themselves. They can start with exchanges, custodial wallets, then gradually shift towards self custodial wallets.

Self custody superiority depends on the carefulness and cautiousness of the person practicing it in some cases, because a careless holder makes self custody much less reliable than a third party helping to hold your investment. On self custody many people just need some sincerity with themselves because if you are the careless type and you know, be truthful to yourself that you will need extra consciousness for self custody to really work well for you. If you take that carelessness and do not tell yourself the truth, you will regret you did not trust a third party to help because your carelessness will cost you a lot.

I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thinking becomes more common over time. People are often quick to focus on mistakes instead of looking for solutions.Yes, what happened wasn't easy, but it doesn't change the facts. Self custody is still the best option.. no matter how people try to see it, Centralized platforms have a much longer history of hacks than hardware wallets.

To be honest, the news was surprising to me because I'm more used to hearing about exchange hacks. That's why we on this forum keep warning others not to leave their assets in custodial wallets provided by exchanges but many still ignore the advice. So, I don't expect many positive discussions about self custody right now, and that's understandable. However, we shouldn't ignore the fact that self custody remains one of the safest ways to protect your assets when used properly. You want to trust institutions with your money? Alright go ahead but you will understand in the nearest future why your decisions were a mistake..