The article argues that institutions are paying Bitcoin Custodians for the extra risk of added risk to manage assets, as Bitcoin is a bearer asset, defining control as a final transaction and not account credentials. The author points out that Bitcoin does not allow for intervention if keys are compromised, lost or misused, and there is no external authority that can intervene. This creates a bottleneck for clients, with a single custodian holding assets for many parties and limited ability to make them whole. The article argues against this, arguing that Bitcoin allows governance to be enforced directly at the protocol level, with spending conditions, approval thresholds, delays and recovery paths encoded into the wallet. It also highlights the difficulty of designing custody around organizational needs rather than relying on insurance policies to mitigate risk. The authors argue that Bitcoin's governance cannot live outside the asset and that governance that lives outside of the asset is advisory rather than the asset.