Just because institutions have taken interest in Bitcoin, and "bitcoin banks" may arise, it does not change the source code. Issuance remains the same, and decentralisation is up to game theoretic assumptions that play out irrespective of state adoption. Certainly nation-states could coerce certain miners to obey their OFAC SDN lists, or even themselves mine bitcoin (e.g. Iran, Bhutan). But again, Bitcoin remains global, and there is always a miner willing to include your "potentially censored" transaction for a premium.

Now. They have created IOUs and ETFs and easy ways for people to buy Bitcoin without allowing to withdraw (e.g. Robinhood), but that is merely a path-dependent phenomenon. That is, such institutions "appropriate", or assimilate, Bitcoin to their pre-existing structures. It is no surprise that they do not follow cypherpunk manifesto but their own institutional paradigm and business logic of profit-seeking. Such is capitalism.

And such institutional adoption is fine and dandy for this brings much desired legitimacy, usability, awareness, acceptance, and understanding of Bitcoin (in the long run). Certainly it brings their compliance-industry complex to it, but only within their respective domain; that is, such things existed prior to the inception of Bitcoin. Why would it change?

Certainly such "bitcoin banks" and institutions follow and do what they do best, i.e. are dishonest and take advantage of people where possible, e.g. BlockFi, Celsius). This is a human aspect, not a bitcoin aspect. I expect this to continue.

As such, learning curve takes a steep and costly one for some, who leave it to such entities. Either such an entity does not have proof of reserves, or they disallow withdrawal as a reaction to a political circumstance, or by default (e.g. Robinhood). In such a scenario, "Backfire" effect occurs; people will want to withdraw their assets either way.

Then, if impossible, they change providers and maybe even self-custody. It is a process. Some people might still rely on reliable third-party services, some community-custody (e.g. Fedimint; second-party custody) services and others self-custody. This is all to say that such institutional adoption is a good thing for those who genuinely are better with those options. Seriously.

So is Bitcoin neutered? No. But the biggest threat to Bitcoin is not 51% attack but a lack of understanding and education of Bitcoin to the extent it enables ordinary people to handle their money safely. But the necessity that people have for Bitcoin will force people to use alternative channels acquiring it, i.e. in the most "extreme" cases: decentralised marketplaces that exchange the real thing and not IOUs.

Necessity could be sudden backslide of democratic countries into authoritarianism who disable withdrawals, or even freeze and confiscate their bitcoin. Exchanges may even lose the assets on their own mishaps. The history is full of these events; it is merely a matter of time as such.

Necessity could be the need to send money abroad but existing and future regulations prohibit this because of classification of a high-risk third-country (e.g. currently, from outside EU to anywhere in the world, especially Africa, Middle East...).

People need alternatives and they learn. Doing this, they learn to take all their assets to another place. Or sell existing ones, and buy new ones off Bisq or similar.

That said, no: ETFs do not neuter bitcoin but make just another channel for people to participate in the the price action, which make other people attend to it more. Awareness of Bitcoin brings awareness of the "establishment" a la status quo. This brings people to learn and use better practises for future, i.e. self-custody and not ETFs. And again, this is just a multitude of pathways for people to learn about Bitcoin. As I see it, the existing institutions may fail the person who needs Bitcoin out of necessity. The one who didn't need it, like an investor, then I guess they were already financially and otherwise privileged enough from the get-go.

But this view, too, is somewhat myopic considering that not all can safeguard their wealth this way like your parents. And even Bitcoin itself, the miners specifically, need to be trusted to the extent they remain resistant to censorship.

It is an umbrella term that is somewhat ambiguous. All coins ought to be taken as is, such as simply Monero and Ethereum, for example. That's why, when someone talks about cryptocurrency, the discussion should be taken to define exactly what is meant by 'cryptocurrency' because not all are equal or even considered as 'currency'.

I would like to find work in Bitcoin-space that would be beneficial for someone. Maybe that place will clarify itself later down the road.

Hey, here: https://kokkomaki.com/ and specifically: https://kokkomaki.com/2025/07/08/i-ate-psilocybin-mushroom/ also for such vipassana courses: https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/index

If you are heartedly interested, check my experiences of psilocybin. However, I would also like to point you toward Vipassana---insight meditation wherein you can truly see what it means to go inward. See my blog post on that, too. :) www.kokkomaki.con

Caffeine (energy drinks, coffee, tea), Pornography, Social media,... But one has to look for the deeper reason for suffering, not just these symptoms. Many of these things tend to be related to something bigger, related to craving and aversion. One learns this from meditation, through silent observing of thought-behaviour, mind-matter patterns. So it is not that these things are inherently bad, as one can consume these things in a very thoughtful, limited, conscious manner, like once a month or year or whatever. But they are often related to emotions that one seeks to have or not have, such as getting rid of loneliness, wanting to feel energised, wanting to feel important, joyful, and so on. But only through silence can one see this.

If you make eating meat an ideology, that is merely an opinion, a cognitive structure that finds ego's way to justify this. As far as I have understood - reading on animal philosophy, vegan lifestyle, and vipassana meditation - meat eating can be both necessary but also avoidable.

First one does not need to eat meat everyday as some of you may be doing. This is merely the development of the last century, as before humans ate very different assortment of things, as meat was not available in such animal farm quantities. And this bring me to the point of animal suffering: these farms have not been here either until very recently. In long term, they will produce viruses that will kill these farms, and demand a lot of water that will also not be renewed in such a fast pace as what meat eaters want. No need to believe this, as nature knows best how to balance the equation.

Regardless of the philosophical accounts, one can also argue that meat eating may or may not be good and/or necessary for the body and mind. Certainly the proteins are superior to any other plant-based proteins, but then again, I consider myself very, very athletic and muscular, meaning that my soyproteins were very much enough for muscle building. And as such, meat is not needed.

But how does meat eating make you feel? This is the question. I have cravings for meat, but not everyday. Mothers who nurture kids need iron and feel the need for meat. A balanced lifestyle is needed, but eating meat in large quantities every day is linked to cancer and other cardiovascular diseases. So there is that research as well. One should think food as feeling it in the body, as the body requires. Not as identifying with this group or that group. I know friends who have stomach problems with soy-based or vegetable-based foods. So they must eat meat. Can't help.

In the end, we are what we eat. It would best for humankind to be more connected to nature. For meat eaters, this would imply that you kill the pig yourself. Would you be able to do it? Grow the pig for many years, take care of it, feed it in your own little countryside, make friends with it even, and then look it into the eyes kill it at the end. Skin it, bone it, cut the meat, freeze it. Would you be able to do it? Very few of us would be. We are not all butchers. We have given this position to other people, as capitalism wants us to do. Specialisation.

It is as though we rely on third-parties, as we do with banks. We don't want to know how money works, as much as we don't want to hear or see animal suffering, as we eat it.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

Be happy.

ville. www.kokkomaki.com

test

Hi @_arshbot, I share your thoughts. I also wrote about this in my blog www.kokkomaki.com . I worked at a crypto custody company, read lots of regulation and upcoming changes (TRP, MiCA, and all FATF suggestions), and came to the same conclusion: Bitcoin is neutered effectively. It is a dystopia compared to the original dream. Only outlaws will have privacy.

However, I do not think it is an attack per se. Or yes, regulators know what they are doing and to whom. Yet I believe it is more akin to path-dependence and adapting crypto to the existing system of regulations and financial institutions. Thus, it is more neutral act than as if there was a targeted and coordinated attack.

Bitcoin is certainly becoming a walled garden in the US, EU and China. But it need not be elsewhere.