Saylor pointing out that seizures in bitcoin have happened only to legally dubious enterprises states nothing about his stance on self custody. 

Self custody works until it pays to kidnap and torture you or a loved one for profit. Custodians add encumbrances to your keys that can’t be tortured away. This is something rich people must plan for. 

I wish Saylor didn’t use the common/layman’s definition of cryptoanarchy…but that’s my only criticism. Everything else he said is spot on. It’s true 6102 succeeded because people complied rather than boots went kicking in doors. 

While I agree eventually states will try something to violate property rights of bitcoin holders, I think it will be via unjust taxation.