分页: 1 / 1

"Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 03 6月 2025, 15:44
lostsoul

The phrase "Not your keys, not your coins" is a core Bitcoin principle warning that if you don’t control the private keys to your Bitcoin, you don’t truly own it. Here’s what it means in the context of your Bitcoin ETF (like FBTC):

  • Private Keys Explained: Bitcoin is held in digital wallets, secured by private keys (like a password). If you own Bitcoin directly and control the keys, you have full custody. With an ETF like FBTC, you own shares in a fund that holds Bitcoin, but the fund (e.g., Fidelity) controls the actual Bitcoin and its keys.

  • Why It Matters: The commenter is pointing out that with an ETF, you’re exposed to third-party risks:

    • Custodial Risk: The ETF provider or their custodian could face hacks, insolvency, or mismanagement (e.g., FTX’s 2022 collapse showed risks of trusting third parties).
    • No Direct Control: You can’t withdraw actual Bitcoin from an ETF to use in a wallet or for transactions. You’re betting on price movements via shares.
    • Counterparty Dependency: ETFs involve intermediaries (fund managers, custodians), unlike direct Bitcoin ownership, where you rely only on the blockchain.
  • Their Point: They’re likely advocating for self-custody—buying Bitcoin directly and storing it in a personal wallet (hardware like Ledger or software like Electrum)—to align with Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. This avoids trusting institutions, which some Bitcoiners see as contrary to its purpose.

  • ETF Trade-Offs: ETFs like FBTC offer convenience, regulation, and accessibility (e.g., tradable in brokerage accounts), but sacrifice direct ownership. You pay fees (0.25% for FBTC) and rely on the fund’s security.

What to Do:

  • Weigh Your Goals: If you want exposure to Bitcoin’s price without managing keys, ETFs are fine. If you value Bitcoin’s philosophy (decentralization, self-sovereignty), consider learning about self-custody.
  • Learn Self-Custody: Research wallets (e.g., Ledger Nano X, Trezor) and how to securely store private keys. Start small to practice.

Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 03 6月 2025, 15:51
lostsoul

刚刚进入 Bitcoin ETF,难道又要换?抉择


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 03 6月 2025, 16:14
lostsoul

洗脑中

na3than
1mo ago

If all you want is exposure to the price of Bitcoin, sure. But Bitcoin wasn't created for the purpose of "number go up".

Bitcoin is sovereign money. I can take my Bitcoin anywhere - even across borders - and no one can stop me. Can you do that with FBTC?

Before you invest in FBTC, ask yourself, what gives FBTC value? If your answer is "Bitcoin", ask yourself, what gives Bitcoin value?

When you figure that out, you'll have the answer to your original question.


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 03 6月 2025, 16:34
lostsoul

The philosophy of "Not your keys, not your coins" emphasizes the importance of self-custody in Bitcoin ownership, meaning you should control your private keys to ensure true ownership and avoid relying on third parties. This principle is directly relevant to the FTX collapse in November 2022, which had a significant impact on Bitcoin investors and underscored why self-custody matters.

  • FTX Overview: FTX, a major exchange, collapsed due to fraud and mismanagement, filing for bankruptcy after a $6 billion withdrawal surge. Customer funds were misused, and $473 million was stolen.
  • Connection to Philosophy: FTX users, lacking private key control, couldn’t withdraw Bitcoin during the crisis, facing frozen assets or payouts at $17,000/BTC (vs. $100,000+ in 2025). Self-custody would have protected them.
  • Impact on Investors:
    • Direct Losses: FTX users lost access to Bitcoin; bankruptcy payouts were at low 2022 prices.
    • Market Crash: Bitcoin fell 16% to $15,700, with $3.2 billion withdrawn from exchanges.
    • Contagion: Other crypto firms and banks failed, eroding trust.
    • Shift to Self-Custody: Investors moved to self-custodial wallets, as seen in X posts advocating for private key control.
  • Relevance to You: Robinhood and FBTC (Bitcoin ETF) are custodial, like FTX, exposing you to similar risks. You don’t control keys, limiting true ownership. Self-custodial wallets avoid this.

Lessons:

  1. Use self-custodial wallets to control keys and avoid exchange failures.
  2. Transfer Bitcoin from custodial platforms (e.g., Robinhood) to a wallet.
  3. Secure your seed phrase offline to prevent loss.

X Sentiment: Users cite FTX’s 800,000–900,000 BTC losses, urging self-custody to avoid low bankruptcy payouts.


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 03 6月 2025, 16:46
lostsoul

Q: FBTC is a covered security under Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) insurance. What about those investments with FTX? Did they have SIPC insurance?

Grok: To address your question about whether investments with FTX were covered by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) insurance, let’s break it down.

SIPC insurance protects customers of SIPC-member brokerage firms against the loss of cash and securities (up to $500,000 total, including a $250,000 limit for cash) if the brokerage fails financially and customer assets are missing. This coverage applies to securities and cash held in brokerage accounts at SIPC-member firms, which are typically SEC-registered broker-dealers. However, SIPC does not cover losses due to market fluctuations, fraud, or investments in assets not considered securities under SIPC rules, such as unregistered digital assets.

Regarding FTX, the key points are:

  1. FTX’s Structure and SIPC Membership: FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, and its primary operations (e.g., FTX.com) were based outside the U.S., primarily in the Bahamas. Its U.S. arm, FTX.US, was a separate entity that operated as a crypto exchange and was registered with the SEC as a broker-dealer, which typically makes a firm eligible for SIPC membership. However, there is no definitive evidence from available sources confirming that FTX.US was a SIPC-member firm. Posts on X and web sources suggest FTX was not SIPC-insured, as it was not a traditional brokerage, and its primary business involved cryptocurrencies, which complicates the application of SIPC protection.

  2. Nature of Assets on FTX: Most assets on FTX were cryptocurrencies, which SIPC explicitly does not protect unless they are registered with the SEC as securities. SIPC’s rules state that digital asset securities that are unregistered investment contracts are not covered, even if held by a SIPC-member firm. Since most cryptocurrencies traded on FTX (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum) were not registered securities, they would not qualify for SIPC protection, even if FTX.US were a SIPC member.

  3. FTX Collapse and Customer Protections: When FTX collapsed in November 2022, it was not due to a typical brokerage failure but rather alleged mismanagement and fraud, as detailed in legal proceedings against its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried. SIPC protection does not apply to losses from fraud or mismanagement, only to missing assets in a financial liquidation of a SIPC-member firm. Additionally, FTX’s global operations and commingling of customer funds (as revealed in bankruptcy proceedings) further removed it from the scope of SIPC’s framework, which is U.S.-centric.

  4. Comparison to FBTC: You mentioned FBTC (likely referring to Fidelity’s Bitcoin ETF or a similar product). If FBTC is a covered security (e.g., an ETF listed on a U.S. exchange and held through a SIPC-member brokerage), it would qualify for SIPC protection because it is a registered security. This is a key distinction from FTX’s offerings, where most assets were unregistered cryptocurrencies.

  5. Sentiment from X Posts: Posts on X from 2022 and 2025 explicitly state that FTX was not SIPC-insured, contrasting it with traditional U.S. banks or brokerages that carry FDIC or SIPC protection. For example, one post noted, “If FTX was an FDIC or SIPC-insured entity, which all US banks and traditional brokerages are, the US government would guarantee the deposits... But FTX is neither of those.” These posts align with the understanding that FTX’s crypto-focused business model did not fit the traditional SIPC framework.

Conclusion: Investments with FTX, particularly cryptocurrencies, were almost certainly not covered by SIPC insurance. FTX’s primary operations were not structured as a traditional SIPC-member brokerage, and the assets (unregistered cryptocurrencies) were not eligible for SIPC protection. Even if FTX.US was a SIPC member, only cash or SEC-registered securities in customer accounts would have been covered, not the bulk of crypto assets. In contrast, a product like FBTC, if held through a SIPC-member brokerage, would be covered as a registered security.


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 04 6月 2025, 13:41
lostsoul

昨天在 coinbase 开了户:

Invite friends.
$30 for you, $30 for them after their first trade of $20 or more.
https://coinbase.com/join/KDSD5X9?src=referral-link

先买了 $1000 的 bitcoin:

Coinbase fee: $18.40
Subtotal: $981.60
Total: $1,000.00

图片

bitcoin 各种操作手续费都比较多,作为投资似乎不是个好的选择。
就像标题里写的,bitcoin 的价值在于自身结构,它不依赖于任何金融机构。


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 04 6月 2025, 13:53
lostsoul

"Not your keys, not your coins"

现在再看这句话,感觉不一样了。
这句话的字面意思 是对间接投资/持有 bitcoin 的人说的,如果没有 key,就不算真正拥有币。

它也可以理解为 持有人对金融机构说。想要查封我的资金,没门。拿不到我的 key,就拿不到我的币。

Reddit/Bitcoin 上有人讨论量子计算进展可能带来的威胁,看看再说。


Re: "Not your keys, not your coins"

发表于 : 06 6月 2025, 14:56
lostsoul

检验好几天了,根本不让登录账号。有点后悔选择 coinbase 了。

图片