Bitcoin advocate and executive chairman of Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), Michael Saylor, cautioned institutions against using on-chain proof-of-reserves, calling the practice a “bad idea” due to potential cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
Speaking during a panel on the sidelines of the Bitcoin 2025 conference, Saylor pushed back on the growing trend of publicly sharing wallet addresses as a method of proving asset backing. “Publishing proof-of-reserves in the current on-chain format weakens—not strengthens—the security framework of institutions, custodians, and exchanges,” he told attendees. “It dilutes protection for both organizations and investors.”
When asked whether Strategy would consider adopting the practice, Saylor declined to give a direct answer.
Proof-of-reserves became a popular transparency tool following the implosion of major crypto platforms like FTX and Mt. Gox. These disclosures are meant to assure customers and stakeholders that institutions hold enough digital assets to meet their liabilities. Several major players—such as Binance, Kraken and asset manager Bitwise—have embraced the standard.
But Saylor argues that on-chain disclosures expose organizations to undue risk. “No enterprise-level security professional would advise revealing all wallet addresses,” he said. “Ask AI to evaluate the long-term risks of broadcasting your wallet structure—it will give you dozens of pages of potential threats.”
While transparency is a valuable principle, Saylor emphasized that proof-of-reserves only show one half of the equation: what a company owns. “They rarely reflect what is owed,” he added, pointing to the need for more holistic, secure accountability mechanisms.
Strategy currently holds more Bitcoin than any publicly traded company in the world—576,230 BTC, according to BitcoinTreasuries.net. That’s nearly five times more than the next largest corporate holder, MARA Holdings.
As the crypto sector continues to wrestle with the balance between transparency and security, Saylor’s comments add nuance to the debate, especially at a time when trust remains fragile after a string of industry collapses.
