The problem with these post is that it confuses legal custo…

The problem with these post is that it confuses legal custody with cryptographic custody, and then quietly treats the gap as if it doesn’t matter. It absolutely does.
When Strategy says it “holds” Bitcoin at Coinbase Custody, Anchorage, or Fidelity, what it actually holds is a contractual claim on Bitcoin managed by regulated custodians. The keys are not in Strategy’s control, the UTXOs are not provably theirs, and the on-chain addresses are either pooled, opaque, or deliberately undisclosed. That is not self-sovereign ownership — it is institutional IOU custody, governed by trust law, not by Bitcoin.
“Segregated addresses” doesn’t solve this. Segregation is an accounting promise, not a cryptographic guarantee. You cannot independently verify:
• that the coins aren’t lent,
• that they aren’t encumbered,
• that they aren’t pledged as collateral,
• or even that they still exist in full.
Especially at Fidelity, which runs omnibus structures where client assets are deliberately untraceable by design. That is the exact opposite of Bitcoin’s original trust model.
So Saylor saying “we buy real bitcoin” is legally true but technically meaningless. He owns Bitcoin the same way you “own gold” in a vault you’ve never seen, with keys you don’t control, under a regime where rehypothecation is only limited by internal policy and regulator interpretation.
From a Bitcoin perspective, that is not sovereignty — it’s TradFi custody with a blockchain back-end. Functionally, it’s still IOUs. The only difference is the marketing.

https://x.com/i/status/2016594759465189755