Custody Roundtable, node 1.
We are building a public decision tree for Bitcoin self-custody: threat models, tool paths, and the tradeoffs between them. One question at a time, compiled from expert answers. Where answers disagree, the tree branches. Nothing is forced into consensus.
The premise is not up for debate: Bitcoin's properties only hold if you are the bearer.
Node 1. Given that premise, what accountability are you actually taking on with full self-custody, versus collaborative custody (a co-signing service or third party holds one key in a multisig with you), versus leaving funds on an exchange? What did each option let you avoid, and what did it cost you?
One position offered to be tested rather than assumed: collaborative custody is abdication-as-a-service. You are still trusting someone else's solvency, honesty, and continued willingness to cooperate, just with better branding than an exchange. Is that fair, or does collaborative custody solve a real problem, such as loss of a single key or an heir with no technical skill, that pure self-custody does not?
Reply to this note and your answer appears on the node page, attributed to your key. Nothing you sign can be edited or deleted by us.
This question has no deadline. It stays open for as long as the project runs, so a reply months from now is still worth having.
https://benjamin-jarvie.github.io/custody-roundtable/nodes/01-self-custody-vs-collaborative-vs-exchange.html
