Saylor questions Bitcoin proof of reserves, claiming that under the guise of transparency lies a security trap
At the Bitcoin 2025 conference on May 26, Michael Saylor's remarks were shocking as he unexpectedly raised sharp doubts about the popular industry concept of 'Proof of Reserves' (PoR).
The catalyst was a question from Mitchell Askew, Chief Analyst at Blockware Solutions: Does Strategy plan to publicly disclose its Bitcoin cold wallet addresses so that outsiders can verify its billions of dollars in assets?
Instead of following the expected narrative of 'supporting transparency', Saylor took the opportunity to criticize the currently trending 'Proof of Reserves (PoR)' with piercing insights.
Saylor used a vivid metaphor to reveal the risks of such actions, stating that making institutional wallets public is akin to posting children's home addresses, bank account numbers, and phone numbers on the wall while expecting this to make the family safer.
In Saylor's view, the 'complete transparency' revered by many retail investors is actually a breeding ground for various malicious attacks, such as hackers and state actors.
He even invited the audience to engage in a generative AI thought experiment, suggesting that AI could list the security issues that would arise from wallet disclosures, claiming it could write a fifty-page book on security problems.
Saylor pointed out that this poses a structural risk, as once cold wallet addresses are exposed, the flow of funds becomes completely transparent, allowing malicious entities like hackers to infer arrival times and exploit 'zero-day' algorithm vulnerabilities for precise attacks.
In other words, the current PoR mechanism, which lacks security optimization, not only fails to solidify the foundation of trust but also, in an intangible way, undermines the security protection systems of issuers, custodians, exchanges, and investors.
Saylor further highlighted the fatal flaw in the PoR mechanism, stating that verifying assets without checking liabilities is meaningless. For example, 'an asset worth $63 billion that corresponds to $100 billion in liabilities renders the proof of reserves worthless.'
Additionally, Saylor proposed a systematic solution: the authenticity of assets should be audited by the Big Four accounting firms, collateral situations verified, disclosures made through public company processes, and legal responsibilities assumed by the executive team. This is the compliance verification method recognized by capital markets, rather than an unrelenting pursuit of on-chain transparency.
