Why BlackRock Was the BIGGEST MISTAKE for Bitcoin

[yhiaali3]

Since BlackRock entered the market, we know that it will have a major negative impact on Bitcoin and its main features, namely decentralization and privacy, in addition to the fact that investors no longer own real Bitcoin, but rather shares in a central company, while BlackRock is the one who owns real Bitcoin.

And how was Bitcoin affected by this?
What stopped decentralization, their coins follow the same protocol, they can't move coins without following the consensus rules, they can't overwrite the consensus rules by holding coins!

When Salvador bought coins, wasn't that also bad?
How is Salvador buying coins good and how is BR buying coins bad?

Bitcoin was affected by this because a large amount of Bitcoin accumulated in the hands of a central company or companies. Whenever Bitcoin accumulates in the hands of a small group of people, we become closer and closer to centralization.

In addition, instead of buying Bitcoin and keeping it in wallets whose keys they own, people now keep it in the form of shares in a central company, similar to a banking system.

As for El Salvador, it did not buy Bitcoin for speculation as companies do, but it bought it within the framework of the official adoption of Bitcoin as the country’s official currency, and I think this is something else different.

[Stompix]

Bitcoin was affected by this because a large amount of Bitcoin accumulated in the hands of a central company or companies. Whenever Bitcoin accumulates in the hands of a small group of people, we become closer and closer to centralization.

So what's the plan? Wealth redistribution?
Let's have a quota on how many Bitcoin can one have?
Should we also have some rules how many coins you can move at one time and how many you're allowed to sale?

Bitcoin is the perfect example of a capitalistic free market economy, it has always been like that and it will always be, the ones with money will have more, the ones with money will decide what to do with theirs.

As for El Salvador, it did not buy Bitcoin for speculation as companies do, but it bought it within the framework of the official adoption of Bitcoin as the country’s official currency, and I think this is something else different.

It's still one entity controlling a sum of Bitcoin, if you think they have an ulterior motive or it that's something that can relate to psychology, but in terms of code and protocol, there is no difference in centralization between Blackrock, Salvador, Satoshi or anyone else.
Their coins, their keys, their decisions, against you can't have freedom by restricting the freedom of others.

[Faisal2202]

I think we are forced to accept and make trade-offs when giants from Wall Street like BlackRock come to this market. They can help the market grow stronger, become more popular, and have a clearer position in the economy, but their ultimate goal is always to seek profits rather than do charity. We can only focus on investing and always be cautious of their manipulation schemes. I believe that BlackRock not only wants to earn revenue from management fees for BTC & ETH Spot ETF, but they may also manipulate, accumulate BTC, and become whales in this market.

You are right, ETFs have its own pros and cons, when big money comes into the market, more manipulation take place, these centralized platform are acquiring too much BTC that it might affect the decentralized factor of BTC. It can make it less anonymous and can infiltrate the security as well. Besides I think that's not the main point of the Whitney.

She is also concerned about CBDC, she thinks what if people buying BTC ETFs are forced to backup or pair there funds into CBDC then into fiat. Means they will be left with no choice but to use CBDC in order to buy and sell the ETFs. If that's happen then you are already became so centralized. Although choosing ETfs over real BTC is the first step toward centralization but to make CBDC more successful they could make it a requirement for traditional investors using these big companies to manage there funds.