Michael Saylor is calling for the Bitcoin community to reconsider some of its longstanding views on banks, custody, and financial markets as the digital asset becomes more closely connected to traditional institutions.

In an essay titled The Bitcoin Reformation: The Decline of Bitcoin Orthodoxy and the Rise of Digital Capital, the Strategy executive chairman presents his vision for Bitcoin’s development from a peer-to-peer payment network into a widely held capital asset.

The essay is primarily an argument about Bitcoin’s future rather than an independent assessment of its economic role. 

Saylor is one of the digital asset’s most prominent advocates, and Strategy has made Bitcoin the central component of its corporate treasury and financing model. 

Both Saylor and the company therefore have a direct financial interest in wider Bitcoin adoption.

Reconsidering Bitcoin’s Founding Principles

Saylor argues that skepticism toward centralized institutions helped protect Bitcoin during its early development, when the network faced uncertain regulation, security breaches, and repeated exchange failures.

He maintains, however, that some ideas associated with that period have become too restrictive.

These include treating the writings of Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, as definitive guidance and presenting self-custody as the only legitimate way to own the asset.

Bitcoin’s 2008 white paper describes a peer-to-peer electronic cash system intended to enable direct online payments.

Saylor accepts that original purpose but argues that Bitcoin has since taken on a different and potentially larger role as a scarce investment and reserve asset.

Under his proposed model, government-issued currencies would continue to be used for wages, taxes, accounting, and most everyday transactions.

Bitcoin would function primarily as a long-term store of value and would compete with assets such as gold, bonds, equities, and real estate.

Different Approaches to Custody

The essay also addresses the debate between direct ownership and professional custody.

Self-custody gives holders direct control of their Bitcoin through private cryptographic keys.

It reduces dependence on an intermediary but requires owners to secure those keys, protect backups, and make arrangements for emergencies, incapacity, or inheritance.

Institutional custody transfers some of those responsibilities to a bank, fund, exchange, or specialist provider.

That arrangement may offer insurance, audited procedures, and shared authorization controls, but it also exposes customers to counterparty, legal, cybersecurity, and concentration risks.

Saylor argues that neither method is inherently suitable for every holder. His position is that individuals and organizations should choose according to their technical capabilities, legal requirements, and security needs.

U.S. regulators have expanded the channels through which institutions can provide Bitcoin-related services.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reaffirmed in 2025 that national banks and federal savings associations may conduct certain digital asset custody activities, subject to applicable rules and risk-management requirements.

The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the listing and trading of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products in January 2024.

Bitcoin-Linked Products Are Not Direct Ownership

Saylor rejects the practice of grouping exchange-traded products, corporate shares, bonds, and derivatives together under the label “paper Bitcoin.”

He argues that these instruments should instead be evaluated according to their individual legal and financial structures.

A share in a spot Bitcoin fund represents an interest in a vehicle holding the asset, while stock in a Bitcoin treasury company represents ownership in a business with its own management, liabilities, and financing decisions.

Debt securities and derivatives create different claims and risks.

These products can allow investors to obtain price exposure without directly managing Bitcoin. They may also provide liquidity, income, or compatibility with institutional investment rules.

However, none is equivalent to owning Bitcoin directly. Fees, leverage, custody arrangements, corporate decisions, and creditor claims can affect their performance.

In stressed markets, an investment product may also trade differently from the underlying asset or expose investors to losses unrelated to Bitcoin’s network.

Lessons From Institutional Failures

The essay points to failures including FTX, Celsius, and BlockFi but disputes the conclusion that all intermediaries should be avoided.

Those cases involved different business models and circumstances, although each demonstrated risks associated with weak controls, opaque lending practices, or the handling of customer assets.

Saylor argues that investors should distinguish between custody, lending, trading, and other services instead of treating every institution as presenting the same risk.

His proposed approach emphasizes disclosures, segregation of customer property, verified controls, and the ability to withdraw or transfer assets. 

Such protections may reduce certain risks but cannot eliminate the possibility of fraud, insolvency, hacking, or regulatory intervention.

A Conservative Protocol and an Expanding Market

Saylor advocates keeping Bitcoin’s underlying protocol resistant to frequent change while permitting more financial products and services to develop around it.

In his account, miners, node operators, developers, exchanges, custodians, and investors collectively determine whether proposed changes receive sufficient support. 

No individual or organization can unilaterally require the wider market to adopt a particular version of Bitcoin.

Around that relatively stable base, Saylor expects continued growth in regulated custody, funds, corporate financing, credit, insurance, and payment services. 

Individuals would retain the option to hold Bitcoin directly, while institutions could use it as an investment, treasury asset, or collateral.

This model could make Bitcoin accessible to a wider range of investors. 

It could also concentrate ownership and infrastructure among a limited number of custodians, asset managers, and corporations, potentially increasing the influence of intermediaries over how many people interact with the asset.

Saylor presents institutional integration as a natural stage in Bitcoin’s development.