Should the Bitcoin community be concerned about BlackRock?

[Wind_FURY]

Sorry if the topic title is sort of "Gloom and Doom", but it's a genuine question. I came across this write up about BlackRock when I was randomly browsing the internet on topics about the history of different VCs and asset managers,

Meet BlackRock, the company that owns the world and the “fourth branch of government” with $9 trillion in assets under management

BlackRock made headlines last month after the company spent $6 billion to buy single-family homes and turn them into rental properties, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. In most cases, BlackRock even paid more money above the sellers’ asking price, killing the dream of homeownership for the middle class.

In just 33 years, BlackRock has grown from nothing to becoming the world’s largest and most trusted asset manager and the company that owns the world. The firm has also become an increasingly influential Wall Street player in Washington, DC, and a revolving door between finance and politics. Today, at least three of BlackRock’s leaders now hold prominent roles in President Joe Biden’s cabinet.

Given the company’s habit of forming shadow cabinets ahead of presidential transitions and its involvement in the new Federal reserve programs, Bloomberg went as far as calling BlackRock our “fourth branch of government.”

https://techstartups.com/2021/08/10/meet-blackrock-company-owns-world-fourth-branch-government-9-trillion-assets-management/

Here's a research paper opening a debate if BlackRock, and other large asset managers, are "fourth branch" OR actually "first branch" of government, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Ertl4/publication/372824190_BlackRock_Co_Fourth_or_First_Branch_of_Government/links/64c96a2ab7d5e40f331ad0f2/BlackRock-Co-Fourth-or-First-Branch-of-Government.pdf


OK, now that we have the same understanding of what BlackRock actually is and what they are capable of, this is what they filed in their registration statement for their ETF,

In the event of a hard fork of the Bitcoin network, the Sponsor will, as permitted by the terms of the Trust Agreement, use its sole discretion to determine, in good faith, which peer-to-peer network, among a group of incompatible forks of the Bitcoin network, is generally accepted as the Bitcoin network and should therefore be considered the appropriate network for the Trust’s purposes.

The Sponsor will base its determination on whatever factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to, the Sponsor’s beliefs regarding expectations of the core developers of bitcoin, users, services, businesses, miners and other constituencies, as well as the actual continued acceptance of, mining power on, and community engagement with, the Bitcoin network, or whatever other factors it deems relevant.

There is no guarantee that the Sponsor will choose the digital asset that is ultimately the most valuable fork, and the Sponsor’s decision may adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result. The Sponsor may also disagree with Shareholders, the Bitcoin Custodian, other service providers, the Index Administrator, cryptocurrency exchanges, or other market participants on what is generally accepted as bitcoin and should therefore be considered “bitcoin” for the Trust’s purposes, which may also adversely affect the value of the Shares as a result.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1980994/000143774923017574/bit20230608_s1.htm

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

[1714865083]

1714865083

[1714865083]

1714865083

[1714865083]

1714865083

[1714865083]

1714865083

[1714865083]

1714865083

[mk4]

I've read a lot about this when this news was released, and I've read multiple times that those statements were just made for 'legality' purposes. I'm no expert in law though, so take this with a grain of salt.

[Cvetik56]

Should we be concerned? Definitely, I think it's important to know what's going on. But I don't think we'll be able to change much.

[stompix]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

No, because, unlike the evil guys in movies and conspiracy theories, Blackrock is pretty good at making money, so they would not spend a shitton of cash to end up with a fork that is useless and with a ton of negative publicity. If they wanted to do that they could have simply picked another coin or started their own from scratch, there is simply no financial incentive to do such a thing, they would have not only to buy the entire thing first but then to convince people that their fork is the real deal, so if they would have this power to convince people why not use it from the start?

Second, if they or somebody else is capable of doing this and the whole community chooses their fork for the financial aspects it means Bitcoin has already failed or rather we have failed Bitcoin.

Btw:

BlackRock made headlines last month after the company spent $6 billion to buy single-family homes and turn them into rental properties, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. In most cases, BlackRock even paid more money above the sellers’ asking price, killing the dream of homeownership for the middle class.

That's Blackstone!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/blackstone-bets-6-billion-on-buying-and-renting-homes-11624359600

[livingfree]

I am naive on this topic and mostly happy when a company like BlackRock buys Bitcoin or has some positive news about Bitcoin.

Now, this made me concerned if they're like the 4th branch of government and has got a lot of money which means power as well to the things they touch.

So, if they're touching Bitcoin now then that means that soon they'll be one of the oligarchs on this industry.

[Sayeds56]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

Although a well funded company like BlackRock could potentially make an attempt to influence the development and direction of deeply decentralized currency like Bitcoin. However, prevailing community driven ethos and its highly established principles and practices, make it highly unlikely to alter its intrinsic nature of decentralization or manipulate it. The robust community involvement and their adherence to its well established norms within the Bitcoin ecosystem acts as substantial barrier against such efforts.

[Lucius]

I am of the opinion that perhaps we should not be so worried as cautious, for the reason that it is, after all, a world-renowned and respectable company. However, I also believe that for them (as well as many others) Bitcoin is nothing more than a means to make a profit, which means that they will do everything to make that profit, regardless of all the possible negative consequences for Bitcoin.

However, the fact that the Bitcoin community has been talking about BlackRock for months (mostly positively) speaks in favor of the fact that for the majority it is not too important what and how BR will work if they get approval, but whether they will succeed in pumping up the price of BTC so that many can reach their exit point.

Unfortunately, we have long moved away from the most important reason for which Bitcoin was created, so the question arises whether we should now worry about what many have been wishing for for years, which is that the biggest players join the game.

[avikz]

I won't go to the debate whether BlackRock is the first or fourth branch of the government but BlackRock is indeed the biggest asset management company of the world. They manage a volume of approximately 9 trillion usd. So with this kind of money under the belt, when a company decides to join the crypto bandwagon, it's risky as hell.

With this kind of money, they definitely hold a very strong position to manipulate or even destroy the entire crypto ecosystem. A decentralised network scattered across the world might not have the power to fight these mercenaries. If they decide to do bad to the bitcoin network, they can achieve their goal.

[ImThour]

As I have mentioned in previous posts related to BlackRock and them being involved recently with the Bitcoin market, I don't think so you should be concerned or worried. They do have a huge confluence and a good amount of money to move the markets alone however they will never do that. 9 Trillion Dollars of their money will never be able to exit the previous markets where they have been invested and can never be fully invested to Crypto market. Surely, they can do manipulation if they want.

[Crypt0Gore]

Blackrock is one of the reasons the world is so fucked, some of the evilest people work there and they will be my eternal slaves when they die.

If the world is so fucked because of black rock, at least now they aren't hiding what they are chasing, do you have anyone working under black rock that's suffering? Tell them to chase the same thing, Bitcoin.

What do you mean by they will be your eternal slaves when they die? Are you one of those idiots who look at the rich as sinners who will be thrown into the pit of hell in the end?

It takes more than a mind to be in power, if poor people are put in the seat of power and money they will mess things up more than those who are already running things.

Are you seeing what the youths are doing today? People are losing their minds, bad things are looking like the right things to them, all I'm saying is, do not be the judge of these people, there is always more to everything we think we know.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

Man, Blackrock is so loaded that they could probably corner the market in bitcoin if they wanted to (though I haven't checked what BTC's market cap is in a while).  Whenever I've been researching stocks, and I check who the biggest investors are, they're nearly always the largest investor--and it doesn't even matter what the stock is.  They have huge positions in pretty much everything.

As far as being afraid or having any other emotion concerning Blackrock and bitcoin....nah.  I don't know about all of this talk about them being a de facto branch of government, but if they'd wanted to they could have manipulated bitcoin any way they wanted to since its inception--and maybe they have to some extent, who knows?  I'm just not going to let unfounded thoughts run rampant in my head when there aren't any facts to support said thoughts.

I'm more curious about what the SEC and whatever other branch(es) of the US government are going to do as far as regulation goes.  I'm also hoping a republican gets elected to office as president and Joe Biden becomes another one-termer.  Not to stray too far into politics, but I do think a republican would be more supportive of cryptocurrency than a democrat.  They all suck anyway, but republicans tend to be more business-friendly and less enthusiastic about regulation than democrats.

[Dunamisx]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

Even if BlackRock should employ thousand of developer and miners, they cannot make any alterations to the bitcoin nodes and transactions, everything has already been planned and they have no choice than to comply with the consensus with the blockchain technology protocols for any validation which has to be a unanimous decisions from all developers and miners across the world, any changes that does not conforms to the network get rejected, taking a loot at what a decentralized network means, you will discover that everyone gets connected to the bitcoin nodes and it's obvious that BlackRock cannot employ every developers and miners.

[Lucius]

Man, Blackrock is so loaded that they could probably corner the market in bitcoin if they wanted to (though I haven't checked what BTC's market cap is in a while). 
~snip~

Let's say that the BTC marketcap is approximately x20 smaller than what BR manages, but maybe money is not the most important thing in that story, but the influence BR has and the reputation it enjoys in the highest circles of politics, and not only those in the US. However, I ask myself how it is that if the success of their request is viewed with a large dose of optimism, the market does not react in the way it should react, that is, the price has been static for months and behaves as in the case of waiting for past halvings.

I am not referring to small investors who mostly do not understand the difference between futures and spot ETFs, but to those who obviously understand it very well, but for some reason do not think that now is the right time to invest in BTC. The only logical explanation for me is that they are also waiting for some unequivocal sign that the bull run is starting before they direct significant funds into BTC.

[OcTradism]

Let's say that the BTC marketcap is approximately x20 smaller than what BR manages, but maybe money is not the most important thing in that story, but the influence BR has and the reputation it enjoys in the highest circles of politics, and not only those in the US. However, I ask myself how it is that if the success of their request is viewed with a large dose of optimism, the market does not react in the way it should react, that is, the price has been static for months and behaves as in the case of waiting for past halvings.

Bitcoin needs better adoption that will go along with bigger institutional investors and bigger communities together with stricter regulations from governments. Because when governments see something like bigger threats from Bitcoin, they will do more regulations to constrain it. Especially when they launch their CBDCs which are centralized and will not be supported by Bitcoin communities.

BlackRock is only one of institutional investors, they are not the first and will not be the last. I don neither overestimate nor underestimate effects from BlackRock.

[kryptqnick]

As someone who isn't from the US, I didn't know that BlackRock was that influential. I mean, I knew it's a huge investment company, so of course it's got some serious resources and connections, but still, not on that scope. To me, though, it still seems dubious that BlackRock is actually going to get their ETF approval from the SEC, so I guess we'll see how influential they really are.
As for their potential power over Bitcoin, they're talking about a hard fork situation, which IMO seems unlikely at this point, and, more importantly, considering that many people around the world don't know about BlackRock, so its influence is very limited regionally, and also since lots of Bitcoiners care about decentralization and independence from authorities, I don't think we should worry about BlackRock using its resources to fork Bitcoin and win over the majority.

[Davidvictorson]

Sorry if the topic title is sort of "Gloom and Doom", but it's a genuine question. I came across this write up about BlackRock when I was randomly browsing the internet on topics about the history of different VCs and asset managers,

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

I am on the same page with you on this. Blackrock controls the government. If BlackRock gets into bitcoin and controls a large percentage of it, then  government controls bitcoin. Hope you see it . This is my opinion and perspective that their Bitcoin ETF is a trojan horse for concealing their true intentions for bitcoin. It is possible that they intend to suppress bitcoin's best features as much as possible through the implementation of hard forks. They are not to be trusted.

[franky1]

well DCG(NYA agreement+ core) done it years ago with sponsoring core devs and having ownership in many prominent services(economic nodes) to do the mandated activation of blackmailing pools to follow or have their blocks ignored... so yes its possible

thats why we need to scrutinise whos funding the lead maintainers and look at who manages the main economic nodes to see where the power strings are being pulled

[Fiatless]

I am naive on this topic and mostly happy when a company like BlackRock buys Bitcoin or has some positive news about Bitcoin.

Now, this made me concerned if they're like the 4th branch of government and has got a lot of money which means power as well to the things they touch.

So, if they're touching Bitcoin now then that means that soon they'll be one of the oligarchs on this industry.

I always knew that influential institutions investing in bitcoin will bring both opportunities and threats. The opportunity will be it will drive adoption and attract more investment to the sector. But the threat will be their ability to influence the bitcoin space with thier huge funds and government connections. These are just unseen fear because BlackRock might just be an innocent business that wants to make a profit from the industry. I am not even sure that Biden's government will approve these applications for Spot Bitcoin ETF.

I'm more curious about what the SEC and whatever other branch(es) of the US government are going to do as far as regulation goes.  I'm also hoping a republican gets elected to office as president and Joe Biden becomes another one-termer.  Not to stray too far into politics, but I do think a republican would be more supportive of cryptocurrency than a democrat.  They all suck anyway, but republicans tend to be more business-friendly and less enthusiastic about regulation than democrats.

Politicians are unpredictable and their policies are also dynamic. The last Republican that left the White House was not a fan of Bitcoin. Donald Trump publicly criticized Bitcoin calling it a scam against the dollar. Currently, two Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy have shown positive interest in Bitcoin, and if elected bitcoin might get some friendly policies. But a Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr has also shown his admiration for Bitcoin. I also hope the US gets a more Bitcoin-friendly President because Joe Biden Administration has not been favorable to the sector.

[livingfree]

I am naive on this topic and mostly happy when a company like BlackRock buys Bitcoin or has some positive news about Bitcoin.

Now, this made me concerned if they're like the 4th branch of government and has got a lot of money which means power as well to the things they touch.

So, if they're touching Bitcoin now then that means that soon they'll be one of the oligarchs on this industry.

I always knew that influential institutions investing in bitcoin will bring both opportunities and threats. The opportunity will be it will drive adoption and attract more investment to the sector. But the threat will be their ability to influence the bitcoin space with thier huge funds and government connections. These are just unseen fear because BlackRock might just be an innocent business that wants to make a profit from the industry. I am not even sure that Biden's government will approve these applications for Spot Bitcoin ETF.

It's likely that they're about to approve it, that's what I've heard but much better not to be too positive with those as there's already an history of it being rejected several times.

While these big companies are said to be concerned on this market, as an individual, I can say that I can't do anything on it on whatever their goals are.

Whether they want to dominate this market and be the top of it, we're seeing the news on their continuous buyouts every time the market plummets.

[Sayeds56]

Politicians are unpredictable and their policies are also dynamic. The last Republican that left the White House was not a fan of Bitcoin. Donald Trump publicly criticized Bitcoin calling it a scam against the dollar. Currently, two Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy have shown positive interest in Bitcoin, and if elected bitcoin might get some friendly policies. But a Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr has also shown his admiration for Bitcoin. I also hope the US gets a more Bitcoin-friendly President because Joe Biden Administration has not been favorable to the sector.

You are correct, politicians all over the world are known for changing their stance on issues as frequently as the weather forecast. It is worth mentioning here that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a Democrat expressing admiration for Bitcoin indicates that support for crypto currencies can transcend party lines, and it suggests that potentially this technology can benefit citizen of USA in many ways, such as financial inclusion and hedge against inflation. However, the regulatory process is very complex in USA, and influenced by many factors beyond president's views.

[so98nn]

I think I am going to say that this is positive news for us. With their applications of Bitcoin ETF, they are actually making sure that Bitcoin is going to be a secure asset if they are willing to invest heavily in it. I think that pretty much tells us they are not going to be just playing with Bitcoin for fun purposes. They are serious organizations and as you stated a $9 trillion industry mate, it's just superbly powerful with that kind of money to back you up.

In fact, I would say Bitcoin will be just a tiny portion of their business if they successfully get approval for the ETF application. If they are capable of investing $6 billion just to have a new revenue stream from renting properties then definitely they would look at Bitcoin as an accurate and well-planned execution.

BlackRock has already filed 576 ETFs in the past and only 1 got rejected. They have a very high success rate when it comes to such complicated approvals.

Bitcoin is now available in an ETF format but only through futures markets, which are overseen by CME Group (CME) and Cboe Global Markets (CBOE). The largest such fund, the ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF (BITO), has been a modest success and attracted copycats. But a spot-based fund could be cheaper, avoiding the costs and position limits that futures funds contend with when “rolling forward” Bitcoin contracts.

BlackRock has a nearly unblemished record in getting ETFs through the SEC. The company before now has filed 576 ETF applications and been rejected only once. Given that record and other factors, research firm Capstone estimates a 40% chance that BlackRock’s application makes it through. 

“They have a good relationship with the SEC, and there is a reputational risk involved that BlackRock is well aware of,” says Bryan Armour, Morningstar ’s director of passive research. “It seems like BlackRock must know something that we don’t.”

Source

[Faisal2202]

As far as i have seen Biden is Against decentralization and anything come in the way so they are just making people to move on the option where they could have the full control over people's money but i am not worrying about these statements because the political parties are not permanent instead they are temporary and when the times comes we will see some good news.

But although i am not an expert here but I think they could create fork of the real BTC as other fork were made but how that could effect the BTC price. Because hard forking has been occurred so many times and we all know these platform will come up with these ideas and they will have different names for there ETFs which we all know. But the thing that confuses me is how these progress will effect the BTC price.

[franky1]

But although i am not an expert here but I think they could create fork of the real BTC as other fork were made but how that could effect the BTC price. Because hard forking has been occurred so many times and we all know these platform will come up with these ideas and they will have different names for there ETFs which we all know. But the thing that confuses me is how these progress will effect the BTC price.

anyone can create a fork. but if they are a major economic node(service) that many users use and they have partnerships with other major services. and they all agree that the fork is the majority chain to follow and they paid the main core maintainers to maintain the fork. then the fork becomes BTC and the old chain unaltered becomes the stale altcoin
because then the mining pools would follow the fork or not get their transactions/rewards seen by the services

[hatshepsut93]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

Their clients would sue them, their reputation would be damaged and all of that for what? To pocket the coins on the other chain, which would probably lose some value after such turmoil? How high would the profit from such scam would be - a few billions? And how would they take them - who would buy their coins? A company that manages trillions in asset is unlikely to engage in such behavior that will be generally counteproductive for them.

[franky1]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

Their clients would sue them, their reputation would be damaged and all of that for what?

no one sued DCG+blockstream, seems their reputation was not damaged either. now check out bitcoin history of events done by blockstream(sponsored core devs) and DCG(corporate investment company) incentivising/blackmailing pools and cooperating with economic nodes(NYA)

if your the type of person that denies a certain thing happened years ago, then that weakness of observation/lack of community care/oversight/review means it can easily happen again via the same PR and ignorance campaigns

[Darker45]

In terms of possibility, yes, this could happen. But if we are to make a cost-benefit analysis on this, I doubt it would be to BlackRock's benefit if they do what I consider as dark imaginings of some people. And I doubt BlackRock is so villainous an entity that they're secretly planning for this. Also, however powerful they may seem, they still have an interest and a reputation to protect.

In the first place, BlackRock is already powerful enough to just enter into the game not by joining Bitcoin but by creating its own coin. I bet, being the largest asset manager in the world, it would cause a huge hype, a FOMO, and explode. And they would create much money out of thin air. But they didn't do that. They chose the reasonable way and embraced Bitcoin.

[pooya87]

The only reason why Blackrock has been making the headlines is that they, as "businessmen" trying to maximize their profit, have been trying to leave United States and take their capital (or at least a big chunk of it) to China and United States government (with all its liberal crap) is trying to prevent them from doing so like any other dictatorship.
Which means there is a struggle between the two and I don't think US can afford limiting BlackRock or damaging their revenue because it will ruin US economy. That also means it won't affect their investment in anything bitcoin related, ergo there is nothing for us to be concerned about.

As for the rest (hiring devs and starting hash wars) there is not enough incentive to do so. They want to make as much money as they can not create chaos and possibly damage their own capital.

[Lion02]

In terms of possibility, yes, this could happen. But if we are to make a cost-benefit analysis on this, I doubt it would be to BlackRock's benefit if they do what I consider as dark imaginings of some people. And I doubt BlackRock is so villainous an entity that they're secretly planning for this. Also, however powerful they may seem, they still have an interest and a reputation to protect.

In the first place, BlackRock is already powerful enough to just enter into the game not by joining Bitcoin but by creating its own coin. I bet, being the largest asset manager in the world, it would cause a huge hype, a FOMO, and explode. And they would create much money out of thin air. But they didn't do that. They chose the reasonable way and embraced Bitcoin.

You've presented a thoughtful perspective. It's true that while the scenario you described is theoretically possible, it's unlikely due to the cost-benefit analysis and the potential impact on BlackRock's reputation. Creating their own coin could indeed generate a significant hype, but as you mentioned, they've chosen to embrace Bitcoin instead. This approach seems to align better with their interests and reputation management.

[Ale88]

Is it actually possible that BlackRock could co-opt Bitcoin by, hiring their own developers - probably even hire some of the Core Developers, incentivize a hash war, convince/buy into the economic majority to cooperate, start a fork, and declare their fork as Bitcoin?

BlackRock is jumping into the bitcoin world just because they can make a ton of money from the commissions, I don't think they actually care about it. And even if they do a fork who would use their bitcoin? Maybe some other investors? Maybe some bank? For sure not the bitcoin community so that would be just a waste of time, energy, and especially money. This year is bitcoin, next year they'll be thinking about something else.

[Wind_FURY]

Many answers and many more questions based from different opinions make the topic all more confusing. I may not have made a good hypothetical example of HOW Bitcoin might be co-opted by a bad actor, BUT will anyone agree if someone says that there are entities out there that WANT to co-opt Bitcoin?

It's also ironic that the person who may truly have understood the actual point of the topic, minus the misinformation, is my forum nemesis, frankandbeans. Haha.

 

[Kakmakr]

I think you might be worried that BlackRock would do some kind of hostile takeover, because they are backed by so much money, but they still have investors to satisfy with their decisions. They cannot just dump Billions of Dollars of investors money into Bitcoin and hope that it will yield Billions in profits, once they have achieved it.

I predict that a global "dump" will take place, if a hostile takeover should ever be launched against Bitcoin and it will hurt the price. They might get enough hashing power to launch a 51% attack, but we all know how expensive that will be and how that will influence the market.

Let's say they are successful... this will happen ===> People will switch forks and dump the original Bitcoin (BTC) and then they will have to do it over again with the new fork. 

[sesterceshop]

I'm more worried about the intricate web connecting BlackRock's leadership with key positions in Biden's administration, and its historical involvement in shaping policy during transitions.

[Wind_FURY]

I think you might be worried that BlackRock would do some kind of hostile takeover, because they are backed by so much money, but they still have investors to satisfy with their decisions. They cannot just dump Billions of Dollars of investors money into Bitcoin and hope that it will yield Billions in profits, once they have achieved it.

I predict that a global "dump" will take place, if a hostile takeover should ever be launched against Bitcoin and it will hurt the price. They might get enough hashing power to launch a 51% attack, but we all know how expensive that will be and how that will influence the market.

Let's say they are successful... this will happen ===> People will switch forks and dump the original Bitcoin (BTC) and then they will have to do it over again with the new fork.  

I'm not "worried", I'm merely in acceptance of the truth that there are state-actors and entities out there that want to co-opt Bitcoin because they probably view it as a threat, which they should, and something that needs to be controlled, which they'll try. After read about BlackRock as a "Fourth Branch" of government and "maybe" possibly having the capability to co-opt Bitcoin, I decided to start this topic to listen to all of your opinions.

[Faisal2202]

anyone can create a fork. but if they are a major economic node(service) that many users use and they have partnerships with other major services. and they all agree that the fork is the majority chain to follow and they paid the main core maintainers to maintain the fork. then the fork becomes BTC and the old chain unaltered becomes the stale altcoin
because then the mining pools would follow the fork or not get their transactions/rewards seen by the services

Long story short you are saying if all the validators, miners, or developers make a collude for money to accept the new forked BTC as the real one and the previous real one will be abandoned. And in my thoughts it is not possible because creation of such collude on a big scale is not possible.

Because there are many validators and miners and developers outside the US (BlockRock) custody. Which means why would they accept BlackRock offers it would be like killing a goose which was laying golden eggs. Means why would someone kills the value of decentralization for some money while they can earn more than those platform offering them money.

[coolcoinz]

I don't worry myself with things I cannot change. An ETF would eventually get accepted, be it in a year, or 10 years.

Also, we have a futures ETF, which is pretty much similar to a casino where you don't own any asset but bet on whether this asset goes up or down. Why not have the real thing where a fund holds your coins for you? Sure, it's not what bitcoin stands for, but if someone is too scared to hold it themselves, but at the same time wants to have it, just let him.

As far as Blackrock discussion goes, better them than a much smaller fund. If they have it there's a lower chance they'll go bust and/or scam people.

[dezoel]

We should not be. It's not as big of a deal as people think it is. We are talking about something that would not be a big deal and we are overreacting to it at this moment. I understand that it's going to be fine and we are going to end up with a good return eventually, but that doesn't mean that we are not going to end up with a good result.

We should not be considering the situation like it's "someone", this is a company and we should do something a lot more common and a lot more situation at hand. They can't just sell it all, and they can't just make any move they want, there are stuff in place to protect the market. This is why we shouldn't really be worried about it at all, it's not really that much of a big deal at all.

[franky1]

anyone can create a fork. but if they are a major economic node(service) that many users use and they have partnerships with other major services. and they all agree that the fork is the majority chain to follow and they paid the main core maintainers to maintain the fork. then the fork becomes BTC and the old chain unaltered becomes the stale altcoin
because then the mining pools would follow the fork or not get their transactions/rewards seen by the services

Long story short you are saying if all the validators, miners, or developers make a collude for money to accept the new forked BTC as the real one and the previous real one will be abandoned. And in my thoughts it is not possible because creation of such collude on a big scale is not possible.

Because there are many validators and miners and developers outside the US (BlockRock) custody. Which means why would they accept BlackRock offers it would be like killing a goose which was laying golden eggs. Means why would someone kills the value of decentralization for some money while they can earn more than those platform offering them money.

clarification

miners are asics they have no hard drive. they store no code to check for rules. they just hash. they have no vote
POOLS manage the block collation of transactions and format. and its the POOL that has some form of vote.

if a group colludes to say that the majority of economic services will ignore a pools blocks if the pool abstains from a change. then the hashpower of miners would jump to pools aligning to the change and the pools give into the change to retain the hashpower and ensure their blocks(rewards and transactions) are seen by service so they can spend funds

as for 'validators'
again due to a trick of "backward compatibility" nodes do not need to upgrade their note to be compliment and accept a change.. meaning they do not get a vote.

instead the main vote is the economic nodes(popular services) that use a certain code that wants to do certain things and ignore other things..

when the only node brand that has been deemed the central point of failure of being the supreme leader and only reference client to offer changes. offers a change in collussion with economic nodes. which then blackmail pools into following or have their blocks ignored. you soon see the power play

now look at the 2016-7 events of how the NYA caused the only 45% acceptance of a protocol change(nov'16-june'17) suddenly jumped to an unnatural 100% acceptance(july'17) which cause the change to activate(aug'17) even when majority of network validators were not even running the latest software.. but the economic node and pools were flagging to let it happen out of fear/threat of having blocks rejected

in short yes it has happened. and there is code and blockdata to prove it. even though social trolls pretend it didnt happen by their silly stories of denial by use of asking their buddies to quote to each other denying it.. (echo chamber)
so check the block data, check the code of events(immutable data) of 2017 and the NYA and see what actually happened. and realise if DCG(nya) can do it then so could blackrock, using the same tactics

and yes we should be aware of risks. not deny risks. we should scrutinise those in power not treat them like gods..

here is a thing to learn
DCG has its own ETF application and so the comparatives of mission and motive can be seen between what did happen vs what could happen that benefit a business and their corporate partners (DCG or blackrock)