Core Argument - A significant debate is occurring within the Bitcoin community regarding the future of custody, sovereignty, and the role of ETFs in mainstream adoption, highlighted by investor Fred Krueger's endorsement of a dual strategy proposed by Nick Szabo [1][2]. Group 1: ETF and Self-Custody Debate - Krueger advocates for the adoption of institutional frameworks like banks and ETFs while simultaneously defending the right to self-custody, suggesting a balanced approach to Bitcoin's future [2]. - The ideological divide is deepening between Bitcoin purists, who prioritize personal sovereignty, and ETF proponents, who argue that traditional infrastructure is necessary for scaling [2][5]. - Eric Balchunas from Bloomberg questions the inconsistency of Bitcoin purists who accept exchanges for custody but oppose ETFs, arguing that both rely on outsourced custody, with ETFs being more cost-effective and safer [5]. Group 2: Historical Context and Theft Resistance - The discussion on custody dates back to a debate initiated by Bram Kanstein, who compared gold's historical role as money to Bitcoin, emphasizing the centralization of gold and its eventual replacement by trust-based alternatives [3]. - Szabo points out that while Bitcoin addresses certain weaknesses in speed and verification, it still falls short in theft resistance compared to traditional trust-based methods, which influences Wall Street's preference for third-party custody [4]. - The philosophical standoff is further illustrated by Sam Wouters, who argues that users can withdraw to self-custody from exchanges, unlike with ETFs, highlighting a key difference in custody options [5][6].