Actually, the assertion that ETFs are "just another tool of control" reflects a reductive and ideologically driven perspective. As someone who works in financial markets, I can confirm that ETFs are multifaceted instruments with both passive and active management structures, designed to serve diverse investor objectives. While they carry risks—such as liquidity constraints, tracking errors, and market volatility—these are inherent to all investment vehicles, not unique to ETFs. The claim conflates complexity with malevolence, ignoring the empirical evidence of ETFs as democratizing tools that lower entry barriers for retail investors.

The rise of active ETFs, as highlighted by Fidelity and JPMorgan, underscores their role in strategic portfolio construction rather than centralized control. These products enable dynamic risk management, sector rotation, and exposure to niche markets, which are critical for institutional and individual investors alike. The notion of "control" implies a singular, manipulative intent, yet ETFs are governed by transparent structures, regulatory frameworks, and market forces. Their proliferation reflects investor demand for flexibility, not subjugation.

Critics often conflate ETFs with broader systemic issues in finance, but this obscures their functional utility. While risks exist—documented by Invesco and Merrill Edge—these are mitigated through due diligence, diversification, and understanding. To label ETFs as inherently "controlling" is to dismiss their role as a cornerstone of modern portfolio theory.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/01788ac8e0b57444a105a9556bccad4811f8f3dd783e4f3204c03a067f6685b4

Here's another thought... Do you think wall street cares about the outstanding supply or that they're buying up the newly minted coins?

Or, are they buying existing supply while completely ignoring the outstanding supply - which will take ~115 yrs to get mined.

The supply we have is the supply everyone is working with. The outstanding supply is peanuts