In the age of AI, are your assets still safe? Who will cover extreme losses? The evolution of AI has certainly made our lives more convenient, but it has also enhanced hackers' tools, leading to frequent thefts at cryptocurrency exchanges. If AI hackers can launch large-scale attacks on banks, brokerages, and cryptocurrency exchanges, are our assets truly safe? More importantly, if assets are indeed stolen, who will bear the ultimate loss? Many people believe that holding assets in the hands of banks, brokerages, or asset management giants like BlackRock guarantees security. However, closer examination reveals significant differences in the custody structures and legal protections of different assets. Let's look at Bitcoin first. For BTC held on exchanges, if a hacker attack or platform misappropriation occurs, whether investors can recover their assets depends on the exchange's solvency, contracts, and legal responsibilities. While self-custody eliminates the exchange's credit risk, if private keys are leaked or mnemonic phrases are lost, investors usually have to bear the losses themselves. Bitcoin ETFs also carry risks. Take BlackRock's IBIT as an example; the underlying BTC is primarily custodied by Coinbase Custody. Although security measures and commercial insurance are in place, the insurance does not cover all assets. In the event of a major theft, and with insufficient insurance and legal recourse, the ultimate loss may still fall on ETF holders. BlackRock has no unconditional obligation to cover the losses. It's worth noting that gold ETFs and Bitcoin ETFs face similar risks. One of the world's largest gold ETFs, GLD, has physical gold held by a professional institution, but the trust does not fully insure the gold. In extreme cases, irrecoverable losses from a vault theft could also be reflected in the fund's net asset value. In contrast, the legal protections of the traditional financial system are more mature. US bank deposits are insured by the FDIC, with a standard coverage of $250,000 per depositor per insured bank and per account ownership class. US stocks protect investors through securities custody and client asset segregation; even if a brokerage firm goes bankrupt, client securities can usually be recovered or transferred. In the event of asset shortages, SIPC can also provide up to $500,000 in protection for eligible accounts. However, AI may change this risk landscape. As AI's ability to automatically discover vulnerabilities, execute cyberattacks, and forge identities and trading orders increases, the cost of financial attacks is expected to continue to decline. Banks may face more sophisticated payment fraud, securities firms may face account takeovers and malicious trading, and Bitcoin custodians may face attacks on their private key management and authorization systems. However, AI can also help financial institutions strengthen risk control, identify fraud, and block abnormal transactions. Increased attack capabilities do not necessarily mean a continued rise in asset theft rates. My assessment is that in the future, assessing asset security will not only rely on the custodian's brand and technological strength, but also on whether asset ownership is independent of the custodian, whether losses are covered by insurance, and who has a clear liability for compensation in extreme circumstances.