I changed my mind about custody after watching traders hesitate at the worst possible moment.
The issue is not only security. It is control under pressure.
In DeFi, people want to move fast, but they also want to know who holds the keys, where the order goes, how execution happens, and what they are paying for. That tension is why many users still jump between CEX convenience and on-chain control. $BILL
Traders care about timing. Builders care about repeatable usage. Liquidity providers care about serious flow. Institutions need clearer operating standards. Regulators will keep focusing on custody, transparency, and accountability.
My grounded opinion: self-custody only becomes mainstream for active trading when the workflow stops feeling like a penalty.
That is the part of @Genius I find relevant. Genius Terminal is not just about placing trades on-chain. It is trying to make wallet-controlled trading feel more practical, with faster execution, cleaner workflows, and transparency that users can actually use.
$GENIUS fits into that infrastructure conversation because the real question is not whether DeFi can stay decentralized. It is whether it can stay decentralized while becoming usable enough for serious market participants.
The risk is clear: if users feel one bad transaction, confusing route, or failed execution costs them more than custody protects them, trust breaks quickly.
Not financial advice.
Would you rather trade faster with less control, or slower with full custody?