Should the Bitcoin community be concerned about BlackRock?

[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)