當邁克爾·賽勒（Michael Saylor）在比特幣2025會議上踏上側級時

5月26日，邁克爾·塞勒（Michael Saylor）在2025年比特幣2025會議上踏上了側級時，觀眾期待著通常的促進主義

At the Bitcoin 2025 conference on May 26, Michael Saylor, known for his strong stance on Bitcoin, took the stage to discuss the industry’s favorite transparency meme—on-chain proof-of-reserves—with an almost scathing directness.

在5月26日的比特幣2025會議上，邁克爾·塞勒（Michael Saylor）以其在比特幣上的強烈立場而聞名，他上台討論了行業最喜歡的透明度模因（在鏈中的居住在居民中）的直接性幾乎是嚴厲的直接性。

The question came from Blockware Solutions head analyst Mitchell Askew, a "huge fan" of what Saylor has done.

問題來自Blockware Solutions主管Mitchell Askew，這是Saylor所做的“巨大粉絲”。

Askew asked Strategy to publish on-chain addresses so that outsiders could verify its multibillion-dollar hoard.

Askew要求策略發布鏈上的地址，以便局外人可以驗證其數十億美元的ho積。

“Yeah, proof-of-reserves. It’s an interesting thing. I’m not sure people learned the things from FTX and Mt. Gox that the institutional community needs to learn going forward,” said Saylor.

塞勒說：“是的，居住的證明。這是一件有趣的事情。我不確定人們從FTX和Gox山學到了這些東西，機構社區需要學習前進的知識。”

His contention is two-pronged: first, today’s PoR implementations are positively dangerous; second, even a “perfect” PoR would be insufficient because it omits liabilities—the other half of solvency.

他的論點是兩管束：首先，今天的POR實施是積極的危險；其次，即使是“完美”的POR也是不夠的，因為它忽略了責任，這是償付能力的另一半。

Saylor’s rhetorical opener was vivid. Publishing institutional wallets, he said, resembles “publishing the address and the bank accounts of all your kids and the phone numbers of all your kids and then thinking somehow that makes your family better.” What many retail users praise as radical transparency is, for him, an “attack vector for hackers, nation-state actors, every type of troll imaginable.”

Saylor的修辭揭幕戰很生動。他說，出版機構錢包類似於“出版所有孩子的地址和銀行帳戶，以及所有孩子的電話號碼，然後以某種方式認為使您的家人變得更好。”對於他來說，許多零售用戶稱其為根本透明度是“黑客，民族國家演員，每種巨魔的攻擊矢量”。

He invited the audience to run a thought experiment with generative AI: “Go to the AI, put it in deep-think mode, and then ask it what are the security problems of publishing your wallet… It will write you a book. It will be fifty pages of crypto-economic security problems.”

他邀請觀眾對生成AI進行思想實驗：“去AI，將其置於深思熟慮的模式，然後問它出版您的錢包的安全問題是什麼……它將給您寫一本書。這將是五十頁加密經濟的安全問題。”

The issue is structural, Saylor argued. Once a public entity doxes its cold storage, every subsequent movement of coins becomes visible, allowing adversaries to deduce treasury timing or exploit change-address heuristics. “The current conventional, insecure proof-of-reserves … actually dilutes the security of the issuer, the custodians, the exchanges, and the investors.”

塞勒認為，這個問題是結構性的。一旦一個公共實體將其冷藏量儲藏起來，隨後的硬幣移動就會變得可見，使對手可以推斷國庫時機或利用變化地址啟發式方法。 “當前的常規，不安全的儲存卓越……實際上稀釋了發行人，託管人，交流和投資者的安全性。”

Assets Without Liabilities Are A Bitcoin ‘Parlor Trick’

沒有負債的資產是比特幣的“客廳技巧”

Even assuming an airtight method for proving assets, PoR as currently practiced ignores the creditor side of the balance sheet.

即使假設使用證明資產的密封方法，當前實踐的POR也忽略了資產負債表的債權人方面。

“It’s proof of assets that is insecure, and it is not proof of liabilities… So you own $63 billion worth of Bitcoin—do you have a hundred billion dollars of liabilities?”

“這是不安全的資產證明，這不是責任證明……所以您擁有價值630億美元的比特幣 - 您有一億美元的負債嗎？”

He hammered the point with institutional caricature: “Institutional investors would laugh at me if I said, ‘Here’s a wallet that has $72 billion… Don’t you worry your pretty little head about liabilities.’”

他用機構漫畫敲定了這一點：“如果我說，機構投資者會嘲笑我，'這是一個有720億美元的錢包……您不必擔心您對責任的小頭。”

To satisfy the capital-markets audience he courts, Saylor laid out a different standard: “You want an institutional-grade proof of assets and proof of liabilities with them netted out. And the best practice is not to publish the wallet. The best practice… would be to have a Big Four auditor that checks to make sure you actually have the Bitcoin, then checks to make sure the company hasn’t rehypothecated or pledged the Bitcoin… Then you have to wash it through a public company where the CFO signs, then the CEO signs, then the chairman and all the outside directors are civilly and criminally liable for it.”

為了滿足他法庭的資本營銷觀眾，塞勒（Saylor）提出了一個不同的標準：“您想要一個機構級的資產證明和責任證明與他們的責任證明。最好的做法是不發球。最好的做法是最好的做法。最好的做法是……要確保您擁有比特幣的大型審核員，然後確保您擁有比特幣，以確保您的compo and pl pl proth pl pl pl proth pl proth pl pl pl pl pl proth plin pl pl pl prote pl proth pl in pl prote pl y pl prote pl pl y pl，首席財務官標誌，然後是首席執行官簽名，然後董事長和所有外部董事對此負責。”

Related Reading: 2,000MW Of Pakistan’s Extra Electricity Now Reserved For Bitcoin Rigs

相關閱讀：巴基斯坦2,000MW的額外電力現在保留給比特幣鑽機

Why elevate auditor attestation over cryptographic proofs? Because, Saylor said, jail concentrates the mind. “You wonder why people trust US companies? Because of Sarbanes-Oxley, because you go to jail if you lie.” In his view, the threat of prison constitutes a stronger deterrent than any public Merkle tree snapshot.

為什麼要提高審計師的證明，而不是加密證明？因為，塞勒說，監獄集中精力。 “您想知道人們為什麼信任我們的公司？因為薩班斯 - 奧克斯利，因為如果你說謊，你要入獄。”在他看來，監獄的威脅比任何公共默克爾樹快照更強大。

The corporate cadence he described is familiar to securities lawyers but rarely discussed at Bitcoin meet-ups: quarterly Form 10-Q's, the annual Form 10-K, blackout periods that forbid capital-markets activity until those filings clear. “If a company can’t file a 10-K it means its auditors won’t sign off on its books, which means it maybe isn’t solvent.” By contrast, missing a self-imposed PoR deadline carries no statutory bite.

他描述的公司節奏對證券律師很熟悉，但很少在比特幣聚會上討論：季度10-Q表格，年度10-K的年度停電期，禁止資本營銷活動，直到這些文件清楚為止。 “如果一家公司不能提交10-K，則意味著其審計師不會在書籍上簽字，這意味著它可能不是溶劑。”相比之下，缺少自我強加的POR截止日期沒有法定咬合。

A Solution For The Future?

未來的解決方案？

Saylor did concede a hypothetical future in which Strategy might participate. “At some point, I can see implementing some kind of proof-of-reserves if you can come up with a zero-knowledge proof that blinds everybody from being able to track the underlying wallets.”

Saylor確實承認了一個假設的未來，在該戰略中可能會參與。 “在某個時候，我可以看到實施某種儲備證明，如果您可以提出一個零知識證明，使每個人都無法跟踪基礎錢包。”

Even then, governance hurdles remain: custodians, exchanges, auditors, risk managers, officers and directors would all have to sign off, and the method would still have to mesh with GAAP audit scopes.

即使那樣，治理障礙仍然存在：保管人，交流，審計師，風險經理，高級官員和董事都必須簽字，該方法仍然必須與GAAP審計範圍融合。

Where many advocates cite collapsed exchanges as evidence that more on-chain data is required, Saylor flips the lesson. “Don’t do business with shaky offshore exchanges run by juvenile tweakers. And if you’re a crypto person, hold your own crypto.” PoR, in his telling,

在許多倡導者中引用崩潰的交流作為證據表明需要更多的鏈上數據的證據，Saylor翻轉了課程。 “不要通過少年調整器進行的搖搖欲墜的近海交易所做生意。如果您是加密貨幣人物，請握住自己的加密貨幣。” por，他說的