What makes Bitcoin what it is, is any changes to the code or protocol are in the hands of not only the miners, not only in the hands of the node runners, but in the hands of the HODLers themselves. To believe Blackrock's act of forking is going to destroy Bitcoin is to taint the definition of bitcoin itself. Running more nodes than everyone else doesn't change it, the code enforces the protocol. Sure Blackrock could theoretically run 95% of the miners and thereby press a protocol change, but this is still a different chain, different code. Adding retirement-capital to make NGU to a chain with more miners still doesn't change bitcoin, it only swindles everyone's retirement account using the blackrock "bitcoin" chain. Blackrock could convince most people they hold bitcoin on their shitcoin chain, but they won't and then, watch --- out. Blackrock would be the next FTX.
Discussion
Think of it this way... what if bitcoin cash, when it split, was able to maintain a significantly higher price than BTC for atleast a year post fork. Blackrock has an unimaginable influence on the market, and can hold the ETF holders hostage to their decision of the "legitimate" bitcoin chain. It is a risk to think about; Blackrock in my eyes is a malicious actor.
This note is from another thread and is my current thought on the topic:
The only defense I could see is a robust Bitcoin ETF market, with each ETF offering competing over the traits of transparency, blockchain verify-ability, and ease of redemption. If only the Blackrock ETF gets approved I think shenanigans are about to go down
Agreed, however plebs aren't the only ones that would be screaming from the rooftops that Blackrock's chain is a shitcoin. With bitcoin being as transparent as it needs to be, I don't think any organization could pull it off.