1. The addresses that hold #BlackRock BTC ETF are not known, so yes, fractional reserves could be run in this case. By your argument we could say that centralized exchanges without proof of reserves necessarily have full #BTC reserves which makes no sense.

2. IMO, it’s a naive view to think that BlackRock couldn’t in any way subsidize the miners he has invested in. Investment is already a form of subsidy. You’re referring to Bernie who is an individual who ran a Ponzi scheme. This is a totally different scenario.

3. That’s your interpretation that because node operators signal for one side that is the reason why this side has kept the ownership of the #Bitcoin brand but in reality the side that get to keep the brand is determined by a social consensus that goes beyond node operators and include the entire ecosystem including exchanges and miners. Node majority isn’t a hard coded consensus rule, it is a social one. Also, node majority voting isn’t resistant to sybil attacks that BlackRock could attempt.

4. Go tell that to Bitcoin Cash folks on how not owning the Bitcoin brand had impacted the value of this side of the fork. The Bitcoin brand is the greatest asset to Bitcoin for its numbers to go up. The side that lose the brand will lose the network effect over time.

I agree on the risks that #covenant represent for Bitcoin.