Man I knew takes like this was coming the moment I saw that the vulnerability was confirmed.
Protecting any form of wealth has always required vigilance, time and care.
Custodians are not really as safe or easy as portrayed. Trusting them is fine to the extent that legal recourse and adequate restitution in the event of threat or fraud is guaranteed.
If victims of theft or fraud can get back their stolen or defrauded funds in additon to restitution easily, as many people would not be recommending self-custody.
The reality is that the provider of this legal service, the government, holds a monopoly on it and as a result will only get less and less effective at what they do and charge more and more for their services. Their processes are complex and time-consuming. You get sent to different offices and are loaded with paperwork. You cannot expect them to serve you with priority, because their own resources and personnel are limited.
You might end up spending more than you lost. And even if you do, you won't get restitution. There's also the complication of civil asset forfeiture which is not easy for the layman to understand. You're gonna end up paying a lot to lawyers.
Now imagine how it would be in countries where the legal system is way more broken than those in the west.
It's not like there are competing private service providers people can pay to take care of getting back your funds for you and ensure restitution. Apparently that is an ideological fantasy. It doesn't exist anywhere.
Self-custody is a practical and economic necessity to deal with the reality of a monopolized legal system and its inevitable consequences. It is not really ideological for everyone.
