At the opening of the Bitcoin 2026 Conference, a panel spanning public policy, finance, and technology centered on a question that is becoming more politically significant: should bitcoin self-custody be recognized and protected as a civil liberty? The session brought together Joe Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Unchained, U.S. Congressman Nick Begich, and Zach Herbert, CEO of Foundation Devices. Their shared argument was that direct control over one’s bitcoin is not only a technical preference or a niche security practice. It is increasingly being framed as an extension of private property rights, personal sovereignty, and the freedoms that should still apply when wealth becomes digital.
Congressman Nick Begich grounded that argument in personal experience. He said he began acquiring bitcoin in January 2013 and also witnessed the collapse of Mt. Gox, one of the most infamous failures in crypto history. That background shaped his view that the United States cannot claim to respect private property while ignoring digital assets. In his telling, the underlying principle is simple: if individuals are entitled to lawful control over land, cash, gold, or other forms of property, then the same legal logic should extend to bitcoin and other digital assets as well.
Begich stated plainly that private property rights are fundamental to the American idea and that the legal system should explicitly enshrine those rights in relation to bitcoin and other assets. Zach Herbert expanded on the point from a product and security perspective. He described self-custody as a kind of “gateway drug” into broader digital security habits, suggesting that once people learn to secure their own bitcoin, they also begin to think differently about privacy, device security, and personal sovereignty. For Herbert, self-custody is not merely about storage. It is tied to autonomy, privacy, and values that many Americans view as foundational.
Joe Kelly added a broader historical and cultural dimension. Referencing Mt. Gox again, he framed self-custody as part of American national identity, connecting the preservation of digital rights to the long-standing defense of land rights and private ownership. In that framing, the conversation moves beyond the well-known crypto maxim “not your keys, not your coins.” Instead, it becomes a debate about whether rights that apply in the physical world should continue to apply in digital financial systems where intermediaries can otherwise become points of control, surveillance, or seizure.
The government does not have the right to seize your bitcoin
Later in the discussion, Begich pointed to a powerful historical warning: the 1933 confiscation of privately held gold by the U.S. government. He used that example to argue that under stress, governments have historically taken extraordinary measures against privately held assets. In his view, bitcoin holders should not assume that digital wealth is somehow immune to political pressure or state intervention. If assets are held through centralized custodians, then the pathways for control and seizure remain open. Self-custody, by contrast, is presented as a way to reduce exposure to centralized confiscation risk.
Begich also held up a copy of the Bitcoin Act on stage and read from its language. According to the text he cited, the legislation “affirms and protects the rights of persons to maintain full lawful control over the bitcoin and other digital assets of those individuals.” That wording matters because it shifts self-custody from being treated as a market preference to being treated as a legal right. Under this view, the issue is not simply whether wallets are convenient or whether security practices vary by user. The deeper issue is whether individuals are recognized in law as having the right to maintain direct control over their own digital property.
Begich also emphasized the limits of executive power. A president may be able to influence bitcoin policy, shape regulatory priorities, or signal support for the sector, but cannot create durable law through executive order alone. Congress, he said, must act. Otherwise, one administration’s favorable stance could be reversed by a future one. That is why he argued the time to legislate is now, not later. Without congressional action, any apparent progress could remain politically fragile and vulnerable to reversal.
The panel therefore framed self-custody as much more than a tool for avoiding exchange failure. It was presented as a legal and civic question: if a political system recognizes private property as a core principle, should that protection also apply when the property exists on a blockchain rather than in a bank account, vault, or title registry? This marks a significant change in emphasis. Within the crypto industry, self-custody has often been discussed as best practice for security. On this stage, however, it was described as part of the architecture of civil liberty in the digital age.
The industry must make self-custody simpler without weakening security
Legislative protection was only one side of the discussion. The speakers also acknowledged a practical challenge that the industry has not fully solved: if self-custody is to become mainstream, the tools must be much easier to use. Zach Herbert argued that it is not enough to tell people that holding their own keys is safer. The industry must also address the reasons many people hesitate to self-custody in the first place, including setup complexity, fear of losing recovery phrases, uncertainty around backups, and anxiety about making irreversible mistakes.
For Herbert, the next generation of self-custody products needs to combine simplicity with layered security. In other words, onboarding should be straightforward, but the underlying design should still include strong protections against loss, compromise, and human error. That balance is difficult to achieve. Products that prioritize maximum control can become intimidating to ordinary users, while products designed for convenience can sometimes reintroduce the very dependencies that self-custody is meant to eliminate.
Joe Kelly touched on the same tension from another angle. He argued that the future success of self-custody depends not only on preserving security, but also on preserving access to financial services. Many people do not want to choose between complete independence and full reliance on centralized platforms. They want systems in which they retain meaningful control over their assets while still being able to interact with financial tools efficiently. That challenge will likely define the next stage of innovation in the wallet and custody space.
In practical terms, this means the industry has to compete on product quality, not just ideology. Centralized platforms often offer smoother onboarding, customer support, integrated trading, and account recovery flows. Self-custody, by contrast, offers censorship resistance, stronger control, and reduced dependence on third parties. For wider adoption, providers will need to narrow the usability gap without undermining the core reasons self-custody matters. The panel made clear that defending the principle of self-custody is essential, but making it workable for everyday users is just as important.
Legislation is difficult, but rights must be actively defended
When the conversation turned to current crypto legislation in the United States, Begich did not present the path forward as easy. He openly acknowledged that passing legislation is inherently difficult and noted that roughly 90% of bills fail to become law. That statistic served as a reminder that political support, public attention, and even sympathetic lawmakers do not automatically translate into legal protection. Any effort to enshrine self-custody rights will have to navigate committee processes, partisan negotiation, shifting priorities, and broader debates over digital asset regulation.
Still, his message was not one of resignation. He urged the bitcoin community to contact elected representatives and help push self-custody protections forward. That call matters because it reframes the issue from conference-stage rhetoric into practical civic action. If supporters believe self-custody is a rights issue, then they must act like constituents defending a right rather than consumers requesting a product feature. In that sense, the panel was not only an analysis of policy. It was also a form of political mobilization.
Moderator Grant McCarty of the Bitcoin Policy Institute reinforced that point by saying American rights are not guaranteed and require active defense. In the context of bitcoin, that observation carries broad implications. Property rights, privacy protections, and the right to control one’s own digital assets do not automatically survive technological change. In fact, as new forms of money and ownership emerge, the boundaries of those rights often become more contested, not less.
Overall, the panel at Bitcoin 2026 sent a clear message. Bitcoin self-custody is being reframed from an internal crypto best practice into a broader civil-liberties issue tied to private property, legal recognition, and democratic participation. By drawing on the collapse of Mt. Gox, the 1933 gold confiscation, and the language of the Bitcoin Act, the speakers argued that digital ownership must be defended in law as well as in code. For bitcoin holders, the discussion raised a fundamental question that goes far beyond wallets: who truly controls your assets, and should that control be protected as a right?