Self custody always comes with its own risk just like saving money in the bank has too. It is up to anyone practicing self custody to do proper research into what should work the best for their security sake and privacy.
The fact that these attacks can happen anytime is just a warning to be vigilant and always try to have a backup so as not to lose all holdings at once.

ETFs holding the coins mean you lack self-custody. 

A Bitcoiner shouldn't be afraid to hold his coins. ETFs wont always be there to store it for me. One day he will take them. Why not learn security rather than looking for an alternate risky option?

Humans are hard to satisfy. The solution to the problem is visible for the eyes to see, but some people like making things complicated.

Naturally this principle in doubt about the "self-custody" in doubt because they are victims of Coldcard... maybe I'll think don't trust this hardware anymore or go back to trusting the stock exchange for a while until I really get back to understanding Security much better.

The person begins to stress... for years of storing coins in hardware that is said to be safe, kok instead become a victim of failure of the firmware itself, what they think becomes wild, can even say all hardware is the same.

I understand the situation, I still believe in the principle of self-custody, so the point is that I would rather lose through my own fault than lose in a centralized entity.

But it's not entirely to blame for people using Coldcard.

Let everyone think whatever they want to think. What happened to one should not be enough reason to say it's not reliable. Exchanges have also been hacked and some lose their money, so no place is safe if we are to look at it that way.

Self custody will always be the best option, as long as you know how to do it right always increase the security of your wallet if you must make it harder for people to breaking as Charles-Tim have suggested.

This case is like free marketing for ETF institutions, as many people are planning to move their assets to ETFs since this case. But they should have been able to distinguish that the Coldcard case is separate from self-custody. That it's entirely their fault --- self-custody is still the best way to take full control of your own assets.

They can argue that ETFs can at least provide compensation or privacy, or various other benefits. But still, putting your assets in an ETF is like giving them your assets. Self-custody gives you freedom. All it requires is implementing best practices, such as multi-sig, maintaining secure backups, etc. It may seem more complicated, but it's not as difficult as it sounds.

I don't think it's about human satisfaction, it's about not taking responsibility of risk of self custody. There is no custody of Bitcoin that has no risk, they all have risk but the degree of risk is higher than each other. You can buy an ETF and let them be the custody of the real Bitcoin but it doesn't change the fact that the platform can kick you out and if they do, you will have to fight for your asset. If this is self custody there is no one that will kick you away because you control your Bitcoin, it's your rules your way.

Just because ETF claimed they hold coins doesn't show any evidence that they do, they don't disclose most of their wallet address. The last time FTX went bankrupted, they said the same thing that coins are intact but what happened on that day is unforgettable, the exchange has spent most of their reserves. It was that incident that prompted exchange to start monthly proof of reserves but it still doesn't change the fact that self custody is the best.

The truth is that, most people can't different which wallet is an exchange wallet and which is not.
Nothing is that, most people prefer to use exchanges to hold their coin because of the ease to sell at will without having to sending from another wallet to the exchange or paying for a transaction fee but the bitter truth is that, they forget that, they're trading their safety over a few sent or dollar fee.

Most people still know these things but still prefer to use exchanges simply because they want someone to be responsible for their coins if there ever be a hack, strange but true.

The Coldcard incident is a huge eye opener to wallet devs and hardware companies to properly watch out for certain vulnerabilities in their source code, 1300 Bitcoin stolen and if more will be swiped again, it is a big loss to investors and a massive blow to the idea of self custody.

I don't blame those who are looking for outside measures to protect their investment, this is all human nature, and they are acting based on the current heat concerning the hack, by the time everyone settles, many will eventually return to maintaining self custody.

What's left is to improve how we apply self custody, good tips have already been shortlisted by Charles-tim, which I'm also learning.

Trust 3rd party custody and you will face the same fate as those who deposited their money to Bitmart and right now facing hardship of withdrawing their own hard earned money. The worst thing you can get from self custody is entropy bug however some independent verifiers has said that if you put a little bit of effort rolling dices your seed phrase is still safe but you will need to migrate your coin if you have used coldcard regardless.

3rd party custody will cause you to face diverse set of risk from the tainted address if you happen to accidentally receive shady money which might lock you up out of your account forever, email and kyc breach, to getting banned for no reason. I'd take self custody anyday than custodial service because I know how bad it is. Coldcard was bad, but we shouldn't ignore that even right now, bitmart customers are facing problem withdrawing their money and don't pretend like this kind of problem doesn't happen too often on exchanges.