These people allocate and mostly invest in funds with exposure to certain asset classes (private equity, VC, hedge funds, equity and bond funds, etc).
Who, if they are competent, will happily print out a bunch of keys on paper and lock them in boxes, and charge you a 75 basis point asset under management fee for that service.
What has that really accomplished though?
Are you really referring to a single (non-plural) custodian...?
Now you have to pay a company for this service and also have counter-party risk. Great.
Maybe the risk and cost is not worth it and setting up a multi-sig inhouse is worth it?
Bitcoin is a paradigm shift. Its more important value proposition is the lack of counterparty risk (which other people refer to as "self financial sovereignity"). If you're hiring a custodian to hold the bitcoins for you, you're doing it wrong.
> They think that they don't have the 'expertise'
If bitcoin is seen as requiring some special knowledge to hold it safely, it's simply a UX problem that will be solved when wallet software/hardware matures.
I trust my bank a lot more than I trust myself to keep things safe.
This seems to be a controversial opinion in the crypto-space :)
The "be your own bank" idea which crypto offers was one of the reasons it has taken me a while to get into it. That was something that I really didn't want.
I trust my bank living up to the task of keeping it safe and reimbursing me if they don't. I don't care about the individual coins but I do care about the value they represent and I trust that even if a bank loses a number of coins that it will not affect me. Just like if a bank vault was broken into it would not come out of my account.
Your trust will have a cost. That's what I meant. You will pay with risk or value.