Why governments won't ban/kill Bitcoin but will contain it as Store-of-Value (SoV)

1) Enforcement cost > control benefit - A true ban drives use off-grid (Tor, mesh, cash ramps), destroys visibility, and raises policing costs. Containment via KYC perimeters is cheaper and yields data.

2) Better telemetry inside the tent - With ETFs, exchanges, and custodians, governments get biometrically tied identities, flow analytics, and seizure paths. A ban forfeits that intelligence.

3) Tax and fee capture - Capital-gains, trading, and withholding taxes + Wall-St. fees create dependable revenue. Bans cut a growing tax base and antagonize large financial donors.

4) Financial-stability risk of a ban - Now that pensions, brokers, and banks hold paper Bitcoin, prohibition would trigger losses, lawsuits, and collateral stress. Regulation avoids systemic jolts.

5) Geopolitical arbitrage - A global ban is unlikely to synchronize perfectly. Any major hub offering permissive rules attracts capital and talent. Containment preserves competitiveness while limiting MoE.

6) Legal drag & optics - Speech/property/innovation arguments slow blanket prohibition in rule-of-law states. "Regulate and protect consumers" polls better than "ban and confiscate".

7) Energy & industrial coalitions - Mining as flexible load helps grids, monetizes stranded energy, and brings rural jobs. Those lobbies resist outright bans; regulators prefer conditional allowances.

8) Paperization gives a steering wheel - ETFs/futures/structured notes dampen volatility, centralize price discovery, and make policy nudges effective. You don't need a ban if you can steer.

9) Seizure & prosecution value - Law enforcement has repeatedly seized Bitcoin. A ban reduces cooperative custody and pushes value where seizure is harder.

10) Narrative management > martyr creation - Bans create martyrs and adoption surges. "Invest, don't transact" plus perks for CBDC/stablecoins normalizes behavior without revolt.

11) Innovation insurance - States want optionality if Bitcoin tech (or reserves) becomes strategically useful. Regulate now, keep the option to lean in later.

12) Precedent risk - Banning a major asset class spooks broader markets. Incremental containment avoids setting a weaponizable precedent against other assets.

These are some of the reasons that make me quite confident, there won't be any Outright prohibition (criminalize possession/usage broadly).

I'd put the odds at ~10% or lower over the next 5 years in US/EU/UK.

It would require a massive crisis + political alignment + judicial acquiescence. Possible, not probable. I'd say extreme edge case.

The odds for - Partial/sectoral bans & hard throttling (merchant MoE suppression, node/platform de-platforming bursts, strict KYC travel-rule, custody only) - are higher - ~30%.

My base case is SoV-allowed containment (~60%) - Paper Bitcoin dominates, self-custody tolerated but inconvenienced; MoE pushed to CBDC/stablecoin rails.

Banning Bitcoin is expensive, leaky, and counter-productive for governments.

Containing it - paperizing price, taxing flows, steering payments to CBDC/stablecoin rails - delivers control, telemetry, and revenue with fewer riots. Price can still compound inside that cage; freedom lives only in the relatively small, well-kept self-custody sleeve.

More context: