Michael Saylor Torches Proof-of-Reserves: ’A Solution in Search of a Problem’
MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin maximalist just dropped a truth bomb on crypto’s favorite audit theater.
Why transparency might be overrated
Saylor argues proof-of-reserves creates false security—like a bank printing ’We Have Cash’ on dollar bills while quietly levering up 100:1. His stance? Real assets don’t need receipts.
The irony isn’t lost
Coming from a guy who turned his company into a BTC proxy, the critique stings extra—especially when Tether’s ’verified’ reserves still smell like printer ink and wishful thinking.
One thing’s clear: in crypto, the loudest audits often accompany the quietest exits.
Bitcoin 2025 just got a shock of controversy, Michael Saylor made waves by calling proof-of-reserves “a bad idea,” as highlighted by analyst Mitchell. The bold remark has reignited debate around transparency and trust in crypto. In a recent interview, Saylor outright rejected the idea of publishing on-chain proof of reserves, a practice seen by many in the crypto space as essential for transparency and trust.
Saylor’s Security Concerns
Saylor argued that current PoR methods weaken security by exposing sensitive data. He likened it to publishing bank account details and insisted AI analysis WOULD reveal dozens of ways such disclosures could compromise long-term safety. Drawing from the FTX and Mt. Gox disasters, Saylor suggested that blindly chasing transparency without secure methods could do more harm than good.
i suspected @saylor holding paper bitcoin
now everyone knows he cant back up his BTC claims.
everything he said is a lie. proof of reserve can easily be done with zero security risks.
sell @Strategy as long as you can https://t.co/Inmecnaahc
The crypto community didn’t take his comments lightly. Notably, bitcoin veteran Whale Panda (Stefan Jespers) called it a “major red flag,” stressing that Bitcoin’s core value lies in its transparency. Critics argue that there are ways to verify holdings securely, without compromising asset safety.
For example, Bitwise uses a “proof of holdings” method for its crypto products, and many crypto exchanges regularly publish audit reports to prove solvency. These examples contradict Saylor’s claim that such actions are inherently risky.
The backlash has even reignited old doubts. Some critics pointed to Saylor’s infamous $6 billion loss in 2000 due to an accounting scandal, suggesting a pattern of avoiding transparency. Others are reviving conspiracy theories that MicroStrategy may not hold actual Bitcoin, but instead, paper-based derivatives.
While Saylor remains a central figure in Bitcoin advocacy, this latest remark has cast a shadow over his approach to transparency, raising new questions about how institutional players should handle crypto accountability.
