当迈克尔·赛勒（Michael Saylor）在比特币2025会议上踏上侧级时

5月26日，迈克尔·塞勒（Michael Saylor）在2025年比特币2025会议上踏上了侧级时，观众期待着通常的促进主义

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日的比特币2025会议上，迈克尔·塞勒（Michael Saylor）以其在比特币上的强烈立场而闻名，他上台讨论了行业最喜欢的透明度模因（在链中的居住在居民中）的直接性几乎是严厉的直接性。

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

问题来自Blockware Solutions主管Mitchell Askew，这是Saylor所做的“巨大粉丝”。

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

Askew要求策略发布链上的地址，以便局外人可以验证其数十亿美元的ho积。

“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.

塞勒说：“是的，居住的证明。这是一件有趣的事情。我不确定人们从FTX和Gox山学到了这些东西，机构社区需要学习前进的知识。”

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.

他的论点是两管束：首先，今天的POR实施是积极的危险；其次，即使是“完美”的POR也是不够的，因为它忽略了责任，这是偿付能力的另一半。

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的修辞揭幕战很生动。他说，出版机构钱包类似于“出版所有孩子的地址和银行帐户，以及所有孩子的电话号码，然后以某种方式认为使您的家人变得更好。”对于他来说，许多零售用户称其为根本透明度是“黑客，民族国家演员，每种巨魔的攻击矢量”。

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.”

他邀请观众对生成AI进行思想实验：“去AI，将其置于深思熟虑的模式，然后问它出版您的钱包的安全问题是什么……它将给您写一本书。这将是五十页加密经济的安全问题。”

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.”

塞勒认为，这个问题是结构性的。一旦一个公共实体将其冷藏量储藏起来，随后的硬币移动就会变得可见，使对手可以推断国库时机或利用变化地址启发式方法。 “当前的常规，不安全的储存卓越……实际上稀释了发行人，托管人，交流和投资者的安全性。”

Assets Without Liabilities Are A Bitcoin ‘Parlor Trick’

没有负债的资产是比特币的“客厅技巧”

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

即使假设使用证明资产的密封方法，当前实践的POR也忽略了资产负债表的债权人方面。

“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?”

“这是不安全的资产证明，这不是责任证明……所以您拥有价值630亿美元的比特币 - 您有一亿美元的负债吗？”

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.’”

他用机构漫画敲定了这一点：“如果我说，机构投资者会嘲笑我，'这是一个有720亿美元的钱包……您不必担心您对责任的小头。”

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.”

为了满足他法庭的资本营销观众，塞勒（Saylor）提出了一个不同的标准：“您想要一个机构级的资产证明和责任证明与他们的责任证明。最好的做法是不发球。最好的做法是最好的做法。最好的做法是……要确保您拥有比特币的大型审核员，然后确保您拥有比特币，以确保您的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，首席财务官标志，然后是首席执行官签名，然后董事长和所有外部董事对此负责。”

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

相关阅读：巴基斯坦2,000MW的额外电力现在保留给比特币钻机

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.

为什么要提高审计师的证明，而不是加密证明？因为，塞勒说，监狱集中精力。 “您想知道人们为什么信任我们的公司？因为萨班斯 - 奥克斯利，因为如果你说谎，你要入狱。”在他看来，监狱的威胁比任何公共默克尔树快照更强大。

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.

他描述的公司节奏对证券律师很熟悉，但很少在比特币聚会上讨论：季度10-Q表格，年度10-K的年度停电期，禁止资本营销活动，直到这些文件清楚为止。 “如果一家公司不能提交10-K，则意味着其审计师不会在书籍上签字，这意味着它可能不是溶剂。”相比之下，缺少自我强加的POR截止日期没有法定咬合。

A Solution For The Future?

未来的解决方案？

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确实承认了一个假设的未来，在该战略中可能会参与。 “在某个时候，我可以看到实施某种储备证明，如果您可以提出一个零知识证明，使每个人都无法跟踪基础钱包。”

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.

即使那样，治理障碍仍然存在：保管人，交流，审计师，风险经理，高级官员和董事都必须签字，该方法仍然必须与GAAP审计范围融合。

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,

在许多倡导者中引用崩溃的交流作为证据表明需要更多的链上数据的证据，Saylor翻转了课程。 “不要通过少年调整器进行的摇摇欲坠的近海交易所做生意。如果您是加密货币人物，请握住自己的加密货币。” por，他说的