TL;DR:
- A crypto veteran warns that Bitcoin isn’t as safe as many assume, citing self-custody risks.
- He highlights potential technological threats like quantum computing and mining centralization.
- Regulatory shifts could expose Bitcoin to greater policy risk as institutional adoption grows.
A respected crypto veteran has raised serious concerns about Bitcoin’s long-term safety, arguing that the asset is far from risk-free. According to his analysis, users often underestimate the dangers lurking behind self-custody, network centralization, and evolving regulatory pressures. What many view as fortress-like security may mask hidden vulnerabilities, especially as Bitcoin matures and adoption deepens.
Anarcho-capitalism is a wonderfully abstract ideal that can inspire innovation. It helped inspire me to help invent cryptocurrency.
But real-world cryptocurrencies are not trustless — they are trust-minimized. Each cryptocurrency has a legal attack surface, representing the…
— Nick Szabo (@NickSzabo4) November 16, 2025
Veteran Investor Highlights Real-World Risks Beneath the Surface
First, the veteran warns about self-custody risks that are growing more complex. As cold storage becomes more popular, many holders treat their private keys like ultra-secure assets. But the veteran cautions: losing access to a single seed phrase still represents a single point of failure, especially if stored improperly or exposed to physical risk. Indeed, expanded use of multi-signature wallets and more secure storage solutions has helped, but not all users adopt them.
Beyond custody, he also raises red flags around technological and protocol-level threats. While Bitcoin’s decentralized network is robust, there is concern about long-term vulnerabilities—such as the impact of quantum computing or the growing dominance of mining power in certain regions. These could, he argues, weaken the network’s resilience if not addressed proactively.
There’s also a regulatory dimension to consider. The veteran suggests that Bitcoin’s growing institutional footprint and increasing ties to regulated financial infrastructure might expose it to policy shifts or oversight threats. What once seemed like a fully permissionless system could, in his view, become subject to more centralized influence or unintended risks.
Critically, he emphasizes that these are not existential threats to Bitcoin, but serious challenges that require active management and awareness. Believing in Bitcoin’s long-term value does not mean ignoring its risks, he insists. Instead, prudent holders should balance conviction with disciplined security practices—combining technical safeguards, diversified custody strategies, and a realistic view of how the landscape may evolve.
