Acting as a custodian should require a high-bar, including appropriate security safeguards that are independently audited and tested on a regular basis, adequate balance sheets and reserves as commercial entities, transparent and accountable customer disclosures, and clear policies to not use customer assets for proprietary trading or for margin loans in leveraged trading.
Does it not defeat the purpose of Bitcoin? If most people need these companies to manage their Bitcoin assets, and these companies need to be regulated in some ways (“independently audited”, “adequate reserves”, “no proprietary trading”, etc.), then what is the advantage of Bitcoin versus traditional currencies?
It’s important that the option is available. Even if most do not take it.
It seems like the premise that being regulated was a bug and not a feature was flawed.
This tells me almost nothing.
I wonder why they didn’t include the Bitcoin Foundation in their statement…