Opinion: Kevin Loaec, CEO of Wizardsardine

For decades, institutions managed assets according to a familiar pattern. They choose a gigantic, adjustable caregiver. Institutions then transfer responsibility. Institutions operate on the assumption that scale, compliance and insurance equal security.

In established finance, this approach works. Transactions are reversible, central banks provide backstops, and regulators can intervene. When something breaks, there are mechanisms in place to absorb, relieve, and redistribute the damage.

Bitcoin completely changes these assumptions because it is a bearer asset. Control is determined by cryptographic keys, not account credentials. Every transaction is final. There is no authority that can freeze, reverse or recover funds once they have been moved on-chain. However, many institutions still approach Bitcoin using the same mental model they apply to more established assets.

The result is a still contradiction. Institutions pay caregivers gigantic fees for the appearance of security. They also accept the risks that Bitcoin was designed to mitigate.

When control is outsourced, risk is concentrated

Care models are based on delegation. Assets are pooled. Keys are shared, extracted, or stored behind layers of internal control. Management lives off the chain. This is enforced through policies, approvals, and service agreements, not by the resource itself.

From an organizational point of view, this may seem sensible because responsibility is externalized. Liability appears to be constrained and insurance is cited as security.

Bitcoin does not recognize delegation. If keys are compromised, lost or misused, no external authority can intervene. Insurance coverage is often partial, constrained or conditional.

As a result, in the event of a system failure, customers face the same bottleneck. There is one custodian holding assets for multiple parties, with constrained ability to keep everyone in one piece.

This is not a theoretical matter. Concentrated care creates honey traps. Honeypots attract failure. Failures may result from technical compromise, internal error, regulatory action, or operational failure. In Bitcoin, concentration of control does not reduce risk. It has the opposite effect: the risk increases.

The industry has already seen what this looks like. Large, centralized care models have failed before. They left consumers, businesses and contractors stuck in long-term recovery processes. Limited visibility and inconsistent results.

Management cannot live outside of assets

The basic misunderstanding is not technical. It’s organizational. Institutions are accustomed to enforcing governance through accounts, permissions, emails, and internal workflows. This approach works when the assets themselves are controlled by intermediaries. In Bitcoin, management beyond assets is advisory at best.

If an institution doesn’t control the keys, it doesn’t control the asset. Boards and auditors are right to be wary of frail structures. A model in which one person can move funds is untenable. Regulators are also rightly opposed to unclear control structures.

The choice is not between a one-key portfolio or full-custodial outsourcing. Bitcoin enables governance to be enforced directly at the protocol level. Spend conditions, approval thresholds, latencies, and recovery paths can be encoded into the wallet. The control is structural, not procedural. The network enforces the rules, not the supplier’s back office or support department.

Principles-based trusts change the risk model

Modern Bitcoin scripts enable care to be designed around real organizational needs.

An institution may require multiple stakeholders to approve a transaction. Can enforce time delays. Can define recovery paths in case of lost keys or staff changes. It can separate daily operations from emergency checks. These rules are enforced on-chain, deterministically, every time. All this fundamentally changes the risk profile.

Related: Crypto events that changed the industry in 2025

Instead of trusting caregivers to behave appropriately under stress, institutions rely on systems that behave predictably by design. Instead of outsourcing risk to insurance policies, they first reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic failure. It’s a matter of engineering.

The insurance narrative deserves attention

Long-term care insurance is often presented as the ultimate protection, but in practice it is often misunderstood. Several high-profile care failures have shown that insurance coverage often falls low of customer expectations, whether due to coverage caps, exclusions or lengthy claims processes.

Large custodians insure common assets, and protection limits rarely scale linearly across assets in custody. Exemptions are also common and payouts depend largely on the nature of the event and the custodian’s internal controls. In a systemic event, insurance does not eliminate the risk, but only part of it.

In contrast, individually controlled, rules-based Bitcoin wallets are much easier to secure. Risks are isolated, controls are clear and failure scenarios are constrained. For insurers, this is a simpler and more predictable model. The insurance process works best when it complements forceful controls, not when it compensates for their absence.

Sovereignty is operational, not philosophical

Vendor dependence introduces another layer of institutional risk that is often not known. Interruptions in deposit management, policy changes or regulatory interventions may result in funds being temporarily unavailable. Terminating a caregiver relationship can be sluggish, costly and operationally complicated, particularly for organizations operating in different jurisdictions.

In practice, this has already happened payment is suspendedcompliance-driven access restrictions and service disruptions that prevented customers from moving assets right when time was of the essence.

In the case of onchain and open source curation systems, the software provider is not the gatekeeper. If the service disappears, the institution remains in control. Interfaces may change and providers may be replaced. The resource remains available because control takes place on the blockchain and not on the company’s infrastructure. This is not an argument against service providers, but an argument for removing them from the critical asset control path.

Trust the protocol, not the promises

Bitcoin offers institutions something scarce: the ability to hold high-value assets under rules that are clear, enforceable and independent of a single counterparty.

However, many institutions still prefer familiar narratives to structural security. Login screens are more secure than scripts. Brands feel safer than mathematics, and insurance feels safer than prevention.

This level of comfort can come at a huge price.

Institutions should not pay for the illusion of security by absorbing unnecessary counterparty risk. Bitcoin makes it possible to build governance, recoverability and control directly into the way assets are stored. The technology is mature. The tools exist.

There remains a desire to abandon care models that belong to a different financial system.

Opinion: Kevin Loaec, CEO of Wizardsardine.