Michael Saylor has always been outspoken. At the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, he unequivocally conveyed his opinions on Proof-of-Reserves (PoR), voicing strong reservations. He likened it to recklessly displaying a child’s banking details to the entire world. Saylor’s criticism centered on how this call for transparency poses unnecessary risks to both individuals and institutions.

Concerns About Wallet Transparency

During the discussion, Saylor, who now leads Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), did not mince words. According to him, PoR introduces more challenges than it mitigates. The core principle of PoR suggests that cryptocurrency exchanges publish wallet addresses to demonstrate they possess the assets they claim. While intended to foster trust, Saylor contends it unwittingly creates a significant target for malicious actors.

Michael @saylor’s full answer on proof of reserves WILL SHOCK YOU!! 🤯
The inquiry: Will @Strategy publish proof of reserves?
For the complete, unedited response, check this link.

According to Saylor, revealing wallet addresses weakens security for everyone involved. Hackers can track these addresses, while social engineers can deduce identities and behaviors. This leads to heightened vulnerabilities across the financial landscape, affecting both institutions and individual investors.

Origins of the Transparency Movement

The advocacy for PoR emerged following the collapse of FTX in 2022. The industry grew aware of how easily solvency could be fabricated, prompting exchanges to rush to show proof of their own stability. Disclosing wallet balances became a quick solution to establish trust.

Major players like Binance, Kraken, and Bitget shared wallet information to reassure users. Saylor argues that this actions merely provide a distorted view of the truth.

A Flawed Perspective on Assets

Saylor’s primary argument against PoR is that it reveals only the assets a firm holds, not its liabilities. You might see a billion dollars in Bitcoin in a public wallet, but that doesn’t indicate whether the entity owes two billion to creditors. Without clarity on liabilities, these numbers hold little actionable value.

Saylor advocates for authentic third-party audits executed by respected accounting firms instead of merely publishing wallet addresses. He believes this is the only method to retain trust while safeguarding against potential threats.

A Divided Industry

Saylor’s views have sparked a heated debate in the crypto community. While some individuals agree with him, others assert that public wallet tracking can be beneficial when conducted prudently. The challenge lies in balancing transparency with security needs, a task that isn’t straightforward.

However, this isn’t Saylor’s first time challenging popular opinions, and it undoubtedly won’t be the last. Whether you perceive him as overly cautious or rational, his ability to ignite discussion is undeniable.

Future Challenges for the Industry

Ultimately, the debate surrounding PoR encapsulates a broader issue of trust—whether it’s wiser to disclose asset balances or to keep such information private. PoR remains a hot topic, as does the ongoing inquiry into how to implement it safely. As cryptocurrency firms expand and face greater scrutiny, establishing legitimacy without exposing themselves to risks will be critical.

For now, Saylor is keeping his financial strategies close to the vest, advocating for a more cautious approach.