Most people who actually spend their bitcoin are not on either side of this. They keep the keys and attach a card. The keys stay yours and nobody can move the coins. The card is a permission, and the issuer can cancel it any day. So the question stops being "can they take my coins" and becomes "can they stop me spending". Fine trade for many. Just don't call it full self-custody. 

I perceive that a lot of people are beginning to doubt self-custody given what happened with coldcard and the increasing attack on Trezor via phishing emails. It is human to begin to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of any method, in this case self-custody and transferring the responsibility to a third party. Both sides of the argument are reasonable but I still go with self-custody because it agrees with the cose design of bitcoin and offer true freedom which bitcoin embodies.

Those who finds taking full control of their investments may find it difficult to cope with Bitcoin investment, and they will find solace in other forms of investment. The presence of regulatory institutions coming into the crypto industry is paving way for people like this to have a safe form of investment in the crypto market, of which is good to increase the rate of mass adoption.

Older people who are not technologically inclined are to either keep off from crypto investment, or just learn the very basics of protecting their assets and leave the rest. 


The idea of diversification is not a bad one, not all investors will leave their investments to solely be on Bitcoin, there are other investment assets that are worth investing. What makes Bitcoin/crypto investment different is simply because it is not under anybody's control, except you the investor, and letting anyone know about it is at your own risk. Unlike traditional forms of investments, where at the point of registration/getting the assets, you fill a form immediately for a NOK, in case anything happens, this is automatic, while in crypto investment, you the investor have the personal decision to add NOK or let it be.

Based on the recent hardware wallet drain, if you're advising someone on using a hardware for storage, you have to be specific so they don't go using the one with a weak security, og's would have a clue on safer hardware wallets but how about newbies in Bitcoin, that's why I'm concerned, so your statement don't mislead them. A multi sig wallet or open source wallet with passphrase for extra security is enough. I'm a big supporter of diversification so your second statement concerning it is fact.

Mt.Gox, FTX takes years to return funds to its customers, it is not known whether all the victims have received it, because they have read news that they continue to delay distribution.
Now Bitmart is the same, customers are difficult to attract, has everyone received the funds? And this becomes a risk of saving on the exchange.

Even if the Self-custody is not completely secure, it depends on how secure it is, or they can store multiple btc assets in multiple wallets with different hardware so it's impossible for me to fault them all.
again, it all depends on our own who manages, if you stay careless then the risk of losing funds, that's it.!

Account freezes or asset seizures are quite rare unless you are involved in money laundering or violating their rule.

Risk of keeping Bitcoin on CEXs are real, and nobody is denying that or recommending it. But to be fair, selfcustody come with its own risk as well. All it take is one careless mistake or an accident, and your fund can be gone forever with no way to recover even a small portion of them. Coldcard is one example that we cannot simply ignore when talking about selfcustody.

To be fair, both have their own advantages and risks.

It's not as rare as you think. I understand that it's rare, but it happens. I know two people that their binance account has been frozen without warning.
Nobody has ever said self-custody doesn't have its own risks. I see people talk about the risk of self-custody on this forum every day. I see people talk about keeping your seed phrase secure, I see people talking about keeping their devices and wallet safe. So everybody knows the risk that comes with self custody. They risk are there, but they are risks that you have control over. The risk of CEX is a risk that you have no control over.

Self-custody remains the best way to secure your BTC from harms way. There's no doubt about it. It's just that the recent Coldcard vulnerability, has brought a lot of FUD to the space. Now people are getting wary or skeptical of hardware wallets. If they can't trust hardware wallets, how would they custody Bitcoin on their own? I mean, cold storage is not an option to many. Especially, when they're a "one-time-use" kind of thing. You spend the BTC on a cold storage wallet, but you can't reuse the wallet address for anything else.

Hardware wallets bring the "best of both worlds" by combining the versatility of a hot wallet vs the top-notch security of a cold wallet. While the Coldcard incident encouraged more people to move to CEXs and ETFs, there's still a considerable amount who're still in self-custody. May this be a lesson to everyone not to blindly trust a company with your BTC, before verifying first (Don't trust, verify). I'd go for audited, open source hardware wallets for true peace of mind. Just my two sats.

Depends on how you do that.

Like do you use different strong passwords for your wallets?
If you use different strong passwords, risk of losing all of your wallets on a same device is smaller.
However, if you store your wallets on different devices, that is better than storing all of them in only one device.

If you use different wallets, either web wallets or hardware wallets, you minimize risk of losing all fund by a hack on one wallet brand.

Of course, the wallet diversification needs to be done carefully, firstly with choosing good wallets to use, then other later steps from creation, backup to storage and practice with your devices, wallets, transactions and other activities offline and online.