Self-custody: the ultimate act of rebellion

Why controlling private keys represents the only path to economic sovereignty and the collapse of the system anchored to central banks.

December 10, 2010 – Following WikiLeaks’ publication of classified U.S. diplomatic documents, the organization faces an unprecedented crisis when payment companies Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Bank of America cut off the flow of donations. Julian Assange, founder of the platform, would later reveal that this financial blockade had dried up up to 95% of potential revenue, forcing the organization to survive by drawing solely on its own reserves. Despite never being formally indicted or convicted by any court, WikiLeaks found itself effectively excluded from the global financial system.

October 2020 – During protests in Nigeria against police brutality and in particular the SARS unit (Special Anti-Robbery Squad), the government intervenes drastically by freezing the bank accounts of the Feminist Coalition, an organization that provides protesters with essential support, including food, water and legal assistance. The financial blockade, imposed without any judicial proceeding, leaves thousands of young activists without resources. Despite the attempt at economic suffocation, the movement finds an alternative in Bitcoin, which becomes a key tool to circumvent financial censorship and keep the mobilization active. Popular pressure proves effective: in the same month, the government announces the official dissolution of the SARS unit.

February 2022 – During protests organized by Canadian truckers against the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, Justin Trudeau’s government adopts unprecedented measures. The fundraising on GoFundMe, which reached 10 million Canadian dollars, is blocked on February 4 for alleged violations of terms of service. The protesters move to GiveSendGo, but on February 17 the government invokes the Emergencies Act, authorizing the freezing of bank accounts without a warrant. Over 200 accounts are blocked for a value exceeding 3 million Canadian dollars. In response, approximately 1 million Canadian dollars in bitcoin are raised, used to circumvent financial censorship.

January 22, 2025 – A local section of the AfD party (Alternative für Deutschland) receives an unexpected communication from Volksbank Düsseldorf-Neuss: the bank unilaterally terminates the “business relationship” effective March 31. The right-wing party immediately denounces what it considers a politically motivated maneuver. The episode fits into a broader context of financial pressure against the formation: in 2024, a Volksbank branch in Berlin had already closed the account intended for AfD donations, following a public protest campaign against the party.

Entrusting one’s capital to banks or brokers means ceding effective control over one’s financial resources.

Financial institutions and authorities can freeze money present in an account based on simple suspicions, international sanctions or through discretionary internal decisions.

Exchanges and digital asset custody companies are no exception. Entrusting one’s bitcoins to third parties exposes to the risk of failures or cyber attacks. The financial crashes of Mt.Gox, FTX, BlockFi and Celsius Network have shown how the collapse of an exchange translates into the loss of funds deposited by users.

Then there are the rules imposed by the custodian: withdrawal limitations, document requests, hidden fees or unilateral changes to contractual conditions. The user thus finds themselves bound to the decisions of those who hold their funds – the antithesis of financial sovereignty.

All this without considering regulatory pressure on banks and exchanges. The evolution of anti-money laundering legislation and the imposition of international sanctions can force intermediaries to block legitimate funds or close accounts of clients arbitrarily classified as “high risk.”

In recent years the rise in bitcoin’s price has captured the attention of financial giants and global institutions. The entry of these actors into the market has given life to new adoption channels. This path of “normalization” offers advantages in terms of institutional adoption and market stability, but at the same time imposes limitations that compromise the founding principles of economic independence that the Bitcoin protocol originally intended to protect.

ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) have made bitcoin accessible even to traditional investors, allowing purchase through conventional brokers and platforms. The product is regulated like any other fund and offers transparency on costs and asset value. Additionally, the influx of institutional capital gives Bitcoin legitimacy in the global financial landscape.

However, those who buy shares of a spot ETF only get exposure to bitcoin’s price, giving up direct control of the asset. No possession of private keys or addresses and no possibility to move one’s bitcoins.

The adoption of Bitcoin as a corporate store of value has seen significant growth in recent times. Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) has been the trailblazer, followed by dozens of listed companies. This trend responds to four main motivations:

• protection against inflation and monetary devaluation;
• diversification and defense from traditional financial system risks;
• long-term appreciation potential;
• access to an instantly liquidatable asset 24/7.

The accumulation by these companies produces a dual effect on the market: on one hand, by contracting the circulating supply, it creates upward pressure on price, on the other, the acquisition of bitcoin through excessive financial leverage can introduce systemic risks to the market. A scenario where such companies were forced to simultaneously liquidate large quantities of bitcoins – to meet bond maturities or operating losses – could trigger a cascade effect, amplifying price corrections and spreading instability in the market.

The traditional banking system is also progressively embracing Bitcoin, with financial giants like Deutsche Bank, PNC Bank and BBVA at the forefront in offering digital asset trading and custody services. Even in Italy the main credit institutions are taking their first steps: Intesa Sanpaolo has acquired 11 bitcoins for internal experimentation, while Unicredit has opted for issuing a certificate based on BlackRock’s spot ETF (IBIT). The proposal is to focus on convenience: delegating to the trusted banking institution the purchase and complete management of bitcoin.

Simultaneously, a hybrid model is emerging: bank accounts integrated with self-custodial wallets, where the customer maintains control of private keys while operating through the banking app interface. Some examples like Gruppo Sella with the fintech service Hype in Italy and Bow Valley Credit Union in Canada are exploring this approach. The latter, through a partnership with Bull Bitcoin and Balance, has launched the Bitcoin Gateway service, becoming the first Canadian financial institution to allow bitcoin purchases directly from traditional bank accounts. The model offers customers the flexibility to choose between custody entrusted to Balance, with a dedicated wallet, or immediate withdrawal to self-custodial wallets for full autonomy. If credit institutions adopted an approach genuinely oriented toward self-custody – simplifying bitcoin purchases and immediate transfer to user-controlled wallets, investing in education for autonomous private key management and offering tools that favor independence rather than dependence – we could witness a strong reduction in risks associated with third-party custody.

Taking responsibility for custodying one’s own bitcoins means regaining total control of one’s financial sovereignty. This approach offers several advantages:

• those who hold private keys maintain absolute control over their funds. No bank or intermediary can impose limits, suspend operations or freeze funds;
• censorship resistance: with a self-custodial wallet one can send transactions directly to the Bitcoin network, eliminating any intermediary. There are no central authorities capable of blocking fund transfers;
• systemic resilience: the failure of a bank or exchange does not endanger one’s savings. If one autonomously possesses their own bitcoins, external problems such as financial crashes, fraud and hacker attacks on centralized services have no effect on one’s funds.

Thanks to tools available today – from software and hardware wallets to backup solutions for seed phrases like Recover Bull, a Bull Bitcoin service arriving in the coming weeks – self-custody has become an accessible practice for anyone wishing to take the first step toward true economic sovereignty. A reality also confirmed by Francis Pouliot, CEO of Bull Bitcoin, who emphasizes how among the Canadian exchange’s customers “there are grandmothers who autonomously are setting up a Coldcard (hardware wallet)” for the custody of their bitcoins.

Self-custody represents much more than a simple technical choice: it is an act of personal responsibility and reappropriation of economic freedom and individual sovereignty. The natural consequence of this greater responsibility leads to a progressive reduction in dependence on financial intermediaries. This experience of direct financial freedom modifies an individual’s paradigm. Those who have experienced the monetary independence offered by Bitcoin begin to question the necessity of intermediaries in other areas of their economic life. This triggers a process of conscious disintermediation that goes beyond the simple monetary sphere.

When dependence on third parties is reduced, the propensity for impulsive consumption also decreases. The modern fiat system is purposely built to facilitate spending: just think of instant financing and targeted advertising based on data. Conversely, those who hold bitcoin in self-custody develop more reasoned behavior in money management: greater reflection before purchases, clearer distinction between needs and desires, reduction of impulse purchases and growing appreciation for the value of saved money.

And it is here that the economic transformation described by Saifedean Ammous in the book “The Bitcoin Standard” comes into play. The reduction of consumerism leads to a fundamental change in individuals’ time preference. Time preference represents the degree to which an individual prefers present consumption over future consumption. In the fiat system, characterized by inflation and manipulated interest rates, time preference is artificially high: money loses purchasing power over time, saving is penalized, debt is incentivized and immediate consumption becomes rational.

Bitcoin reverses this dynamic: purchasing power tends to increase over time, saving is rewarded and long-term planning makes sense again. Those who custody bitcoin in self-custody directly experience this phenomenon. Seeing one’s purchasing power grow over time, rather than erode, profoundly modifies one’s tendency to save.

With a lower time preference and greater propensity to save, the individual discovers they need less and less debt. By reducing its role within the fiat economy, the individual puts at risk the equilibrium of the entire central banking system, fundamentally based on debt creation through loans, quantitative easing and unlimited money creation. When a growing number of individuals reduce their dependence on debt, the foundations of the system begin to waver: demand for loans is reduced, money circulation velocity slows and capital under centralized control decreases.

This is not a frontal attack on the fiat system, but a gradual erosion from below. Every individual who chooses self-custody performs a small act of economic rebellion that, multiplied by billions, has the potential to transform the global monetary system.

Bull Bitcoin is the world’s longest-running Bitcoin-only exchange. Strictly non-custodial. Try it here.

The post Self-custody: the ultimate act of rebellion appeared first on Atlas21.

Generated by RSStT. The copyright belongs to the original author.

Source