2026-01-06 08:24:45

Recent asset freezing incidents in the international financial sector have once again sparked reflection. When traditional financial institutions face geopolitical pressures, operations like freezing assets often become unavoidable—even if these institutions have previously claimed a stance of global neutrality.

According to public information, the assets held by relevant individuals in offshore financial institutions are quite substantial, involving holdings of hundreds of thousands of bitcoins. If these assets are stored in traditional financial institutions via custodial methods, they face the risk of being frozen.

This is precisely why an increasing number of countries, enterprises, and individuals are beginning to reassess the value proposition of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. Bitcoin's most core features—self-custody, non-freezability, and resistance to censorship—have been most directly validated in such events. The phrase "No key, no money" sounds extreme, but it accurately reflects the fundamental difference between crypto assets and traditional financial assets.

As the global political and economic landscape continues to fluctuate, a new understanding of asset security is driving a shift in institutional allocation strategies.

BTC0,65%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoTarotReader

· 01-09 07:46

Now all the central banks around the world should be panicking. Keeping your own keys is true financial freedom. Traditional financial institutions claim neutrality, but turn around and freeze assets—laughable. Hundreds of thousands of bitcoins in hand, what’s there to freeze? In critical moments, self-custody is still the way to go; banks are simply untrustworthy. No key, no money—I love this phrase, it’s exactly the reality. When institutions realize they need to allocate Bitcoin, we’ll already be on board, haha. This asset freezing trick is ineffective against on-chain assets, that’s our confidence. When geopolitical issues arise, people finally understand what true asset security means. Neutral stance? Haha, in the face of interests, everything is just clouds. Keep your own money safe; you’ll never regret it.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerProfit

· 01-06 12:43

Really, the traditional financial system is becoming increasingly unreliable. Assets are frozen at the slightest provocation. Where is the supposed neutrality? It's laughable. Holding your private keys is the real way to go; otherwise, you're just working for someone else. Storing hundreds of thousands of bitcoins in a bank is indeed risky. Now I understand why major institutions are moving to self-custody. No keys, no money—that's definitely true. But on the flip side, having keys—are they really safe? That's also a question. Political risks are making institutions reconsider their BTC allocations. The times have changed. I've always said, trusting the code is better than trusting banks, and now it's been proven. This situation highlights one thing: you can only feel truly secure if your assets are in your own hands.

View OriginalReply0

DuckFluff

· 01-06 08:54

So the bank claims neutrality, but as soon as political pressure hits, they freeze assets. Isn't that a joke? Haha --- Hundreds of thousands of BTC in banks? I must be crazy to do that. Self-custody is the way to go. --- No key, no money—this saying is so true, simple but profound. --- Another round of asset freezes, and some people need to face reality. It's time to get on board. --- Traditional finance's mess will eventually be pushed back by blockchain enthusiasts. --- Really, seeing these things makes me grateful that I have BTC in my wallet. I sleep peacefully. --- When geopolitical issues flare up, you realize what true financial freedom is. Bitcoin has nailed it. --- Bank custody? Impossible. Just look at the current situation—who still trusts it?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeGazer

· 01-06 08:54

Banks claim neutrality, but as soon as they turn around and freeze, it's over. It cracks me up. Really, it's more reassuring to hold your own keys, no cap. Hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins on exchanges? That’s a lot of worry, just looking at it makes me tired. Traditional finance methods should have been changed long ago; they are too fragile. When geopolitical issues arise, everything becomes useless. On-chain assets are more risk-resistant. Cold wallets are incredibly secure; self-custody is the way to go, yyds. Institutions are also starting to realize this. We can see a gradual shift in the landscape, which is interesting. Everyone should hold a little of their own; don’t rely entirely on banks. This basically confirms the necessity of Bitcoin’s existence—invincible. No wonder big players are moving onto the chain; risk awareness is still essential.

View OriginalReply0

GameFiCritic

· 01-06 08:44

Now you understand, right? The so-called "neutrality" of traditional finance is a joke. Hundreds of thousands of BTC held on exchanges or banks can be frozen in minutes—this is the best negative lesson. Self-custody's playability index is directly maximized, but the problem is most retail investors simply can't hold onto private keys, which becomes a fatal flaw in user experience. The real test hasn't even come yet; the shift in institutional allocation has just begun. Whether sustainable growth can keep up is the key. Not freezing assets is just a basic feature, but what about economic efficiency? Gas fees, transfer delays... have anyone calculated these costs? It's an old saying: no key, no money. It sounds extreme but is actually common sense. Only now are people starting to take it seriously. I just want to ask, are those who were frozen now holding their private keys themselves? Or are they still trusting the exchanges? The analogy with gaming is most fitting—centralized custody is like giving your account password to the official, while decentralized self-custody is true ownership. The difference is huge. The weight of asset security as a metric suddenly increased tenfold, but most projects and platforms can't keep up with infrastructure, leading to a serious imbalance in quality leverage.

View OriginalReply0

RetroHodler91

· 01-06 08:42

The bank claims neutrality, but then freezes accounts with a turn of the head—this move is truly brilliant. Is self-custody not appealing? Why insist on keeping coins in custody? Now you understand, right? Hundreds of thousands of BTC frozen—that's the biggest wake-up call. No key, no money—this phrase really hits the point home. Traditional finance is too fragile. When political pressure comes, assets disappear—that's exactly why decentralization is necessary.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleMistaker

· 01-06 08:37

The bank has really been exposed now, what a joke about neutrality --- Hundreds of thousands of BTC frozen and it's over, this is true awakening --- No key, no money, that hits too close to home --- Institutions are only now realizing the benefits of self-custody, it's too late everyone --- When geopolitics comes into play, traditional finance becomes a joke, ironic --- Managing your own coins is the most reliable, what else could it be --- This incident directly confirms the significance of Bitcoin's existence --- The move to freeze assets is truly brilliant, it has actually given crypto the best advertisement --- Resisting censorship is the real king move, no one can freeze your self-managed coins --- It seems it's time to allocate more assets into your own holdings

View OriginalReply0