Why is this a weird interpretation? 1) Bruce says systems that result in catastrophic loss from loss of a password are unsafe. 2) Reading at face value, Bruce'

Why is this a weird interpretation? 1) Bruce says systems that result in catastrophic loss from loss of a password are unsafe. 2) Reading at face value, Bruce's idea of a safe system is one where your passwords are recoverable. 3) Bruce knows that wallets are secured by asymmetric cryptography, not "passwords". Therefore, he must be simplifying for a general audience. 4) Reconciling the previous two points results in an argument for mandatory private key escrow. It does not make sense that Bruce would advocate for mandatory key escrow, and yet, that is the logical endpoint of the argument he made in his tweet for supporting this letter.