A couple of things should cover more than 99% of everyone and every corporation.
1. multi-sig
2. cold storage
Where even for most people as individuals, even just cold storage will do. Have either a hardware wallet, or a completely separate device sign the transactions. I use a tablet that is never connected to the internet. (yeah, I did not disable them physically though or remove the antenna ...)
You believe that 3rd-party custody is just going to go away? like magic?
I implied no such thing. In fact, 3rd-party custody will indeed use both methods: cold-storage and multi-sig. Because it's not their coins and they want to take care of it. 3rd party is for those where it's either required by law for them to do it that way (for accountability or whatever reasons) or they are willing to pay to have someone else do it.
Those things will also be insured. That's what Gemini and Coinbase are doing, it seems.
Maybe I am getting lost by the seeming deviations from the original topic that seemed to be about ETFs?
Sure, you started to suggest that there are other ways to get BTC price exposure without having an ETF.. so perhaps we are deviating from the original theme now?
If you want to talk about the various ways that people or institutions can hold their value, that does seem to be a different topic compared to what seemed to be the thrust of the original discussions around whether there still might be ways to get exposure to BTC, which I was not even arguing the various ways to store/secure point, but you seem to nearly completely ignore the issues of whether there are people who exist in a world in which they utilize a variety of financial instruments or they even have managed funds or even difficulties in changing what kinds of funds are offered by their employer, even if we might be referring to a 401k or perhaps other retirement funds that still have to follow so many requirements that normies do not even have any inclination (or perhaps lacking abilities, too) to even try to manage those kinds of retirement oriented funds themselves, so they are stuck with the lack of flexibilities of funds that already exist and such funds would likely be more in a position to get into an ETF once it is approved but they are not likely to get exposure to BTC absent an ETF or some other qualifying financial vehicle that would allow their fund to get exposure to BTC.
In other words, it seems to me that there are certain people and certain kinds of funds that they are not going to do all the various kinds of direct buying that you seem to be mixing into a new discussion area, even if those options were to be available to them.. which there are always options to directly buy BTC, but those are not currently options for those various kinds of retirement funds in the USA, and I am not even referring to the people or institutions who are more than willing to go down the route of attempting to set up systems to get direct exposure to bitcoin.. which seems to be the kinds of people you either want to presume everyone to be or you are totally ignoring that some kinds of funds are restricted in terms of how they can be invested.
Sure some of the pension funds, 401ks and other kinds of retirement funds may well go away or change their restrictive requirements, but that is not our current world and the kinds of reasons that an ETF allows for greater levels of exposure.
By the way, even folks who are going through various exchanges to get exposure to bitcoin, they may not give too many shits about the various custodying choices that their third party holder is engaging in, and sure worse yet with some of the ones like Robinhood or Paypal that so far their customers have not even been allowing the withdrawal of bitcoin that are supposedly owned by them (and yeah of course many of us can appreciate that they are holding vouchers rather than actual bitcoin and there is some expectations that Robinhood and Paypal are directly buying Bitcoin (or some other way of exposing themselves to the direct BTC price) so that they do not get caught on the wrong side of a situation in which they are not holding a sufficient quantity of the underlying asset that they are selling).
So sure we live in a world with all kinds of ways that people get exposure to bitcoin through various third parties, and ETFs seem to mostly fit into such a topic rather than the topic of how people might directly hold their BTC...or how people might use custody solutions that provide safeguards/or control mechanisms to how they hold their BTC..presuming that they are entering into contract relations that might allow them to directly withdraw or they may well have to keep their coins in some of the newly created financial instrument - but still seems to be going to down a different path of discussion in contrast to if there may well be a decent number of kinds of funds that may well not be getting (or have any ability to get) exposure to bitcoin absent some kind of ETF or some other financial vehicle that is acceptable to the kinds of regulations that such retirement funds may well be subjected to.
I do get why it could be confusing as I said 99%, I don't even know what the 1% should be. Maybe I actually meant 100% of everyone will be served by either or both things insofar as BTC storage is concerned, whether that's self-custody or 3rd-party.
That sounds like a different topic from the original one regarding ETF approval in the USA and what kinds of issues are presented by whether an ETF is approved or not or if there might be other equally similar ways that some of those funds might get exposure to BTC absent the approval of a BTC ETF in the USA.
I've been asked before to hold people's coins in the middle of a transaction, but it seems we escrows are a dying breed, (or I'm not willing to perform the service for below a certain minimum, as it's a waste of time really.)
Again, we seem to be going somewhere else... yet if I were to make a bet in this thread with some newbie, I would likely prefer escrow. Of course, if the bet were with a reputable member then we would just use our own, but sometimes it still might be preferable to use escrow if the numbers were BIGGEDly.. or if there might be some time factor that could cause questions of ability to pay of one of the parties.
It feels like we're going to bounce between 38k and 40k for a few days at least...
Until it doesn't.
hahahahahaha
Reverse psychology worked, haha!
But yeah... it's quite possible the pump will be short-lived.
P.S. It's +3k in 5 hours!
Well? Our current local high is $42,615 from about 6 days ago, so it could be interesting to get above that number.. there does seem to be a kind of clawing up that potentially could cause some uncertainties, and so yeah, we cannot be sure if the bears are playing with us or if they are in fact running out of coins... the next 5-ish hours may well be in the ballpark of critical
tmPerhaps? perhaps?
The other two shitcoins that we commonly see compared with bitcoin are gold and equities...so it could be helpful to have those shitcoins in there too.. but sure there is already a lot of information on the chart...so perhaps ONLY so much that can be done with one chart?
