Totally justified from casa. I read a great write up on single points of failure by @lopp and the @CasaHODL team early in my bitcoin journey that convinced me 2-of-3 collaborative custody multisig using different HWW vendors was the only way to go, and frankly I was shocked that people would keep any more than $10,000 or so on any solution with any single point of failure (including myself). Similar write ups have been written by the @unchained team. Over the years I have advocated for this, and been called stupid by people who thought single sig + passphrase was superior. But in the event of a seed generation entropy failure, your coins are now secured only by the entropy of your passphrase, and the only passphrase with sufficient entropy would be equivalent to a second seed phrase - which is more cleanly done with multisig. Second, a passphrase is not immune to a HWW manufacturer compromise or a supply chain attack. The reality is that CC was the brand marketed and perceived by most as “the safest single option.” This has proven the multi-sig advocates core claim that no single option is ever reliable. You simply don’t know what you don’t know. Those with a CC mk3 in a multisig setup can now swap out that key and go on with their lives knowing that they remained protected by the entropy of seeds generated by two other methods (their second HWW and the collaborative provider). Of course, it is not impossible that one of those other methods will prove unreliable in time, but it is exceptionally unlikely that two different zero day vulnerabilities are discovered in different platforms simultaneously and prompt swapping of the vulnerable key protects you against any subsequent failure.