How governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin:

- allow price exposure in surveilled wrappers,

- throttle sovereign self-custody at scale,

- and pin price discovery to venues they can supervise.

Let's look at the definitive signal list of State, corporate, and market-structure tells that add up to containment (not prohibition, not capitulation).

There will be signs (and there are).

A) Law, Regulation, and Supervision

1) KYC/AML hardening (Travel Rule everywhere). Mandates to identify senders/recipients across VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Provider); private transfers face added friction or are discouraged.

To simplify this if you don't know what the Travel Rule is, here is how it plays out:

Exchange -> exchange (VASP -> VASP):

Example: Kraken -> Coinbase. Coinbase is the receiving company. Kraken must transmit originator/beneficiary details (name, account/wallet identifiers, etc.), typically in the IVMS-101 format.

Exchange -> self-hosted wallet:

There's no receiving company (no VASP on the other side), so no counter-party to send data to. In the EU, the sending VASP must still collect info, and for transfers over €1,000 it must verify ownership of that self-hosted address (e.g., message signing).

Self-hosted wallet -> exchange:

The exchange you deposit to is the receiving company. It must obtain required info before/when crediting the funds and may ask you to prove you control the sending address.

2) "Mixer" criminalization/designation. Sanctions and special-measure rules against mixing/tumbling tools and related infrastructure; chilling effect on privacy tooling.

3) Licensing regimes that raise fixed costs. BitLicense-style authorizations; EU MiCA CASP licensing; UK/FCA registration - each converts compliance into a barrier to entry and increases gatekeeper leverage.

4) Broker-style tax reporting. Expansion of standardized gain/loss reporting (e.g., 1099-type forms), pushing exposure into surveilled intermediaries and making day-to-day spend onerous.

5) No de-minimis relief for payments. Everyday Bitcoin spending remains a taxable disposal (no small-purchase exemption), suppressing medium-of-exchange usage.

6) High prudential capital charges for banks. Unbacked Bitcoin exposures given punitive risk weights under bank rules, discouraging balance-sheet adoption and reserve use.

7) Sanctions reach extended to addresses/tools. OFAC-style designations of specific wallets/services; exchanges obliged to screen and freeze - normalizes address-level policing.

8) Advertising/marketing restrictions. Tightened rules on retail promotion; approvals required; compliant phrasing only - slows "organic" adoption.

9) Court acceptance of chain-surveillance evidence. Judicial normalization of on-chain heuristics (taint analysis) increases enforcement confidence and deters privacy use.

B) Market-Structure & Pricing Control

10) Spot ETFs approved; self-custody not scaled. Mass exposure routed into custodial funds with APs/market-makers under surveillance; retail "ownership" = brokerage claims, not keys.

11) Cash-settled futures hegemony (regulated venues). Institutional hedging and basis trades centered on supervised derivatives (e.g., CME), letting paper supply influence marginal price.

12) Custody concentration. A small set of brand-name custodians and a narrow AP set - choke points where policy can act without touching every holder.

13) Index-committee discretion against Bitcoin proxies. Flagship equity indices can exclude corporates that function as Bitcoin trackers (protect index optics; avoid importing crypto beta).

- S&P declined MSTR entry, even though the company meets the requirements. NASDAQ/QQQ inclusion is rules-based which allowed MSTR in (for now). My best guess is that the rules change and MSTR gets kicked out eventually, but this is just speculation.

14) Prime brokerage / funding dependence. Leverage and borrow routed through supervised lenders; stress events are resolved in ways that prioritize systemic stability over "code is law".

15) Stablecoin preference for transactional rails. Policymakers elevate fiat-pegged coins (with issuer KYC/redeem controls) as the "digital cash" path, crowding out Bitcoin as a payments rail.

C) Platform, Standards, and Default Settings

16) App-store / OS policy throttles. Wallet and node apps constrained by ToS (background processes, payment rails, external links), keeping users inside monitored ecosystems.

17) Exchange surveillance integrations. Mandatory chain-analysis (TRM/Chainalysis/Elliptic) as a license condition; withdrawal heuristics trigger holds or questionnaires.

18) Bank/payment "de-risking". Episodic account closures, rolling KBA (knowledge-based auth) challenges, and heightened SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) filing - keeps fiat on/off-ramps scarce and cautious.

19) Standards -> law copy-paste. FATF guidance and regional templates propagate globally; once a control is codified in one bloc, others replicate the same wording.

20) Compliance by SDK/API. Travel-rule messaging, address-screening, and risk scoring embedded in vendor SDKs - containment becomes the default implementation.

21) Identity-bound wallets. Movement toward government-approved digital ID tying KYC attributes to wallets - programmable compliance at the wallet-permission layer.

D) Tax, Accounting, and Corporate Policy Signals

22) Fair-value accounting = optical profits; policy still resists. New accounting lets Bitcoin marks hit earnings, but committees/boards still avoid Bitcoin balance-sheet strategies (volatility + optics + procurement risk).

23) Treasury/board guidelines against macro-speculation. Corporate policies codify "no non-operating macro bets", pushing Bitcoin exposure -if any - into ETF shares, not keys.

24) Insurance & audit gating. D&O/cyber insurance, auditors, and lenders attach covenants or exclusions when Bitcoin exposure is outside well-worn wrappers.

E) CBDC/Identity Build-Out (the strategic substitute)

25) CBDC pilots tied to digital ID and programmable controls. The preferred digitization path is controllable money with ledger-level policy hooks.

26) Merchant QR/soft-POS rails hardened around KYC'd accounts. New payment rails ship with identity and risk controls by default - Bitcoin remains "other".

27) Crisis playbooks tested. Emergency alerting, "essential commerce" allow-lists, and granular merchant categories - primitives for programmable payments at scale.

F) Soft Power: Narrative & Optics

28) Environmental and consumer-risk frames. Sustained messaging that miners "waste energy" or that self-custody is "unsafe for consumers" - used to justify new controls.

29) "Innovation, responsibly" rhetoric. Politically safe posture: bless ETFs/enterprise chain-analytics while sidelining the monetary-sovereignty use case.

30) Hero projects elsewhere. Official enthusiasm channeled to AI, quantum, chips - areas with easier control knobs - signaling where capital and regulatory patience will go.

G) "Absence" Signals (what you never see)

31) No legal carve-outs for small Bitcoin payments. A lasting omission that tells you payments isn't the intended role.

32) No HQLA-style treatment for Bitcoin. Banks are not allowed to count Bitcoin toward high-quality liquid assets.

33) No sovereign reserve disclosures (outside of stolen Bitcoin). If a major central bank/sovereign wealth fund wanted Bitcoin reserve signaling, you’d see it; you don't.

34) No mass-market self-custody education from public institutions. Education focuses on fraud avoidance and ETF literacy, not key management.

H) Second-Order “Pen” Effects

35) ETF-first adoption curve. Households "own Bitcoin" via retirement accounts/brokerage ETFs - behaviorally entrenches custodial dependence.

36) Price discovery anchored where toggles exist. During stress, derivatives and ETF flows dominate; spot self-custody has less marginal impact.

37) Talent and vendor gravity. Startups build to compliance SDKs and custodial APIs; few build UX-clean self-custody for the masses - market follows the money.

38) Jurisdiction shopping ends at the fiat door. Even if an exchange is permissive, fiat banking sits under Basel/FATF; rails re-impose containment at the edge.

Now, let's look at the Falsifiers (Bitcoin escape conditions) that would make this entire post incorrect:

1) G-7/major SWF (Sovereign Wealth Fund) discloses even 1–2% Bitcoin reserves/collateral (not stolen, but bought). In other words, big governments start purchasing Bitcoin.

2) De-minimis tax relief for Bitcoin payments in multiple big economies.

3) Banks get permissive risk weights or HQLA-like treatment for Bitcoin.

4) Non-custodial wallets become ID-neutral by default in major app stores/payment ecosystems.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqsduk969jrc5jjlhsjk2a6z9qpxkx5w6dw4lg2zzlps0x8h2zwzgeq6kad5u

The concept that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption is very misunderstood in Bitcoin.

This concept is called "The Perimeter Capture Rule".

It means that you have to watch the perimeter:

- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),

- app stores,

- payments (exchanges, banks),

- policy.

Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global).

If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: "Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?" If yes, price the center like a tenant.

Many Bitcoiners often say: "We have the best tech, it's permissionless" and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant.

However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base?

And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no.

Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I'm not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I'm talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network).

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qythwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnswf5k6ctv9ehx2ap0qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcqyzxxaet6mv0rlf96qfr9rpgal7745v4txy4ayw00pcvyals4hqutk5jxlha

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You should write a book. I’d buy it.

I have already written a book, but it's mostly about programming.

Maybe I will write a book about Bitcoin and share it for free.

The book will be called "Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of how the US government is turning Bitcoin into Gold".

Maybe use co-opting instead of hijacking. Bad connotation with Roger Ver’s cope book.

Or disarming/subverting/repurposing/domestication

Best account in Nostr.

From a personal perspective, I can tell you that using BTCMaps and paying with Lightning is becoming easier with adoption, but I recognize that a psychological push is necessary to break the inertia of the majority, and frankly, I don't think that can happen. So I'll try to build my personal community and live within it until BTC is fully controlled.

Yes, exactly.

You've described a behavior that strays away from the defaults (introduces friction) and the masses follow the defaults.

The masses go to Amazon, Walmart, Costco, not to small Bitcoin hubs.

These large retailers will never directly accept Bitcoin payments because that would mean competing with the US government and they are subsidiaries of the government.

Also agree that building your personal community is the way. It also works with or without Bitcoin.

The canvas is open to all, but the paint costs sats. (Your words just powered a pixel. )

I previously wrote about how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption.

When managing money, it's very important to understand mass behavior, incentive structures, and why people act against their own long-term interests.

Here are the four engines of mass behavior:

1) Incentive gradients (what pays now)

- People follow net-effort -> net-reward gradients, not ideals. If the reward is near-term, visible, and certain - while the cost is delayed, abstract, and probabilistic - behavior will skew short-term every time.

2) Defaults & frictions (what's easiest)

- Behavior follows lowest-friction paths. Defaults, one-click choices, and pre-checked boxes beat sermons. Tiny frictions shift billions of decisions.

3) Narrative & identity (what feels right)

- People protect self-image and in-group membership even when facts conflict (identity-protective cognition). The story that preserves belonging wins over the truth that threatens it.

4) Feedback loops (what reinforces)

- Immediate reinforcement (likes, payouts, relief) rewires habit faster than distant outcomes.

Why even "smart" people still defect from long-term:

- Meta-incentives dominate beliefs. Even smart people first decide what benefits them (status, income, network), then craft rationalizations.

- Compartmentalization. Professional intelligence ≠ incentive literacy. People who model markets still miss their own behavioral accounting.

- Social risk > factual risk. Getting ostracized today feels worse than being wrong in five years.

How to tell if you're acting against your own long-term interest:

- If the benefit is now and the cost is later, assume you're under-pricing the cost.

- If a choice preserves belonging, assume you're over-weighting identity.

- If the platform chose the default, assume it benefits them more than you.

- If the metric is public, assume it's being gamed (by you or to you).

- If a habit depends on willpower, assume it will fail under stress.

How to consistently pick long-term:

- Automate the boring: savings, skills, sleep, strength, deep work.

- Deliberately add friction to bad paths.

- Make identity explicit: tie your reputation to long-term behaviors.

People don't "fail" because they don't know; they fail because the environment pays them to fail now and bill them later - in cash, status, and belonging.

This is similar to how Bitcoiners are sabotaging themselves by buying Paper Bitcoin with no understanding of the long-term consequences.

More context:

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpr9mhxue69uhkc6t8dp6xu6twvaex2mrp0yhxxmmd9uqzplfvpve5lkalumaw8zkqv0g0mr30dm02dxva5qsu26m0fyq7rlnrwx8sqa

The antidote isn't stronger opinions; it's stronger defaults and pre-committed rules. Read the incentives; expect the behavior; position ahead of it.

The concept of people acting against their own long-term interests becomes very obvious when you start asking:

- "If the default were the opposite, what % of people would still end up here?"

- If the answer is "probably <30%", the current outcome is default-driven, not preference-driven.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqvtw30knexxgwasss0qwafnz68hdx6u25xwpclsz4750ez46qpx2qyt8wumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qqs8wg3awwg2xxh3pp6swhquke7cztz43kr2224tscpr4ysxkcf39zqv767pc