I posted this quoted Yakihonne note across my socials:

A friend replied saying this has never really been a crypto friendly administration.

At first I pushed back. We have ETFs, institutional adoption, big bills being passed, lots of surface level progress. But the more I sat with it, the more I wondered if he might be right.

ETFs do not put Bitcoin in people’s hands. They put it in the hands of banks and institutions. Exposure without ownership. Price without sovereignty.

When institutions buy, governments gain leverage. Regulation follows. Pressure follows. Control creeps back in.

Then you have MicroStrategy and Saylor. One entity accumulating huge amounts of Bitcoin, issuing shares, becoming a single point of narrative and risk. Now MSCI moves to exclude companies primarily tied to digital assets. Suddenly the “never sell” stance may face external pressure.

Put together, it starts to feel coordinated. Not to kill crypto outright, but to neutralise it. To absorb it into systems that can be influenced, regulated, and eventually controlled.

Bitcoin was meant to be outside that system. What happens when the system learns to wrap itself around it?

Just thinking out loud.

#Nostr #Bitcoin #Crypto #Sovereignty #Decentralisation #ETFs #FinancialControl nostr:note1l3cejeajs57fwn0hgu6v2fn52erujjsc447q2qwdf9kku9vl83gqefa38k

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The good news is none of this impacts Bitcoin you personally possess.

And Bitcoin is for anyone, not everyone. That means it is meant to survive even when someone- or groups of people- do things with Bitcoin with which you don't approve. Governments and corporations fucking with it is a feature, not a bug, because the implications- and ironically the value- for Bitcoin as freedom money would actually be much, much worse, if they were unable to do what they are doing.

And none of it stops others from using it in entirely different ways rooted in high moral valuee that strengthen personal responsibility and free speech.