BitcoinETF approval will possibly cause much bigger jump than most people expect

[tygeade]

The bitcoin ETF is a very nice innovation which normalizes bitcoin investment to the traditional investment patterns in stocks and bonds and you can buy as many shares as you wish from a huge portfolio of bitcoin held by the issuers. Very lovely strategy to increase the bitcoin adoption and investment by the general public removing the complexities of direct bitcoin purchase, thereby making it simple and easier to engage. The good thing is that bitcoin controls the market and its price determines the prices of such stocks. Its more like taking bitcoin adoption to the next level.

The ETF has been approved now, and am positive about it because it will increase convenience for those who are reluctant to adopt it for fear of the complexities of acquiring it on the blockchain and alsoThe ETF looks very legitimate and regulated as its approved by SEC itself. I believe its also very much tax efficient, but I know these big players will charge management fees on investors and I just hope it wouldn't be yet another form of high transaction fees that will demoralize  bitcoin ETF investors.

That is what the extra money coming into the market will be like, we already have most of the youth already getting acquainted with bitcoin anyway, we need some of that old money that goes into stocks to start going into bitcoin as well.

When Blackrock has their ETF, they will push to sell it to everyone, and considering they have all the elites money with them, trillions, they could spare just a few dozen billions into bitcoin which would be insane investment overall and we would go up. They are not going to buy bitcoin themselves, that 78 year old with a billion in the bank? They ain't ever putting that into bitcoin, BUT they could put some of it at Blackrocks ETF, which they will use to buy more bitcoins to cover it and it all helps us.

[1715229154]

1715229154

[1715229154]

1715229154

[1715229154]

1715229154

[1715229154]

1715229154

[Synchronice]

Of course, a rejection could result in a very big dump due to insurmountable disappointment as well.

It's very funny how the price went up to 48K when Bitcoin ETFs got approved and then went down to 42K and still struggling to rise. I was expecting opposite and got opposite and you know what's even funnier? After the early twitter post, I opened short interest and I was hoping that they would delay the official announcement because of this shameful accident or something like that and I got shocked the next day when they officially announced ETF approval but I still didn't close my futures short position and I am dying in laugh that I gained profit via that short position. I'm closing it right now, I don't want to risk anymore, sleepless nights sucks.

As far as the expected price increase tied to the approval goes, was the reasoning that the ETFs would buy up a bunch of bitcoin and thereby lower supply?  I'll admit I've never traded ETFs, but the existing ones have to have real bitcoin backing them, correct?

Spot ETFs are backed by real Bitcoins.

Even if it's delayed (and a delay is unlikely), an ETF will be approved sooner or later. Possibly BlackRock and Co. have already purchased some nice BTC before the recent price increase. 

My god, they own a lot of everything.  I don't know if any of you have looked at the top holders of any given stock, but BlackRock is always one of them.  I don't doubt they've got a substantial number of coins.  Makes me wonder if they're also holding shitcoins as well.

BlackRock and Vanguard hold the voting rights for the shares the index funds own. Not only they are the top holders but they have a huge influence over everything they hold. I believe SEC approved ETF because blackrock wanted it, that' how democracy works, isn't it?

[pawel7777]

When Blackrock has their ETF, they will push to sell it to everyone, and considering they have all the elites money with them, trillions, they could spare just a few dozen billions into bitcoin which would be insane investment overall and we would go up. They are not going to buy bitcoin themselves, that 78 year old with a billion in the bank? They ain't ever putting that into bitcoin, BUT they could put some of it at Blackrocks ETF, which they will use to buy more bitcoins to cover it and it all helps us.

I'm quite positive that the ETFs will have a positive impact on Bitcoin's price (in a longer run) but we should stay realistic and not get carried away.
Any "old money" investors that wanted exposure to Bitcoin, could've done so long time ago without spot ETFs. And the "elites" will not be throwing billions into BTC just because it's now available as an ETF. If they made decisions that way, they wouldn't be elites in the first place.
What ETFs do, is to make it more convenient for unsophisticated investors to get in + make it possible for some types of regulated funds, such as retirement funds to offer that option to their clients.

BlackRock and Vanguard hold the voting rights for the shares the index funds own. Not only they are the top holders but they have a huge influence over everything they hold.

If I'm not mistaken, they both now offer proxy voting options to their clients.

[Abiky]

That is what the extra money coming into the market will be like, we already have most of the youth already getting acquainted with bitcoin anyway, we need some of that old money that goes into stocks to start going into bitcoin as well.

When Blackrock has their ETF, they will push to sell it to everyone, and considering they have all the elites money with them, trillions, they could spare just a few dozen billions into bitcoin which would be insane investment overall and we would go up. They are not going to buy bitcoin themselves, that 78 year old with a billion in the bank? They ain't ever putting that into bitcoin, BUT they could put some of it at Blackrocks ETF, which they will use to buy more bitcoins to cover it and it all helps us.

BlackRock has a lot of money at its disposal to "pump" Bitcoin's price all the way to "Mars". What's happening now is the "buy the rumor, sell the news" event. It's all manipulation to "dump" market prices and buy BTC at a bargain. Do not underestimate these giant institutional investment companies (BlackRock, Fidelity, Franlkin Templeton, etc). Just wait until the halving comes in, and BTC will never go back below $40k ever again. People just want quick results with their Bitcoin investment. But that's not the way it works.

You need to have "diamond hands" to be able to succeed in crypto. No matter the FUD, you can rest assured Bitcoin won't be going anywhere soon. Maybe it will go as far as replacing Fiat (or even Gold) in the future? Just my opinion

[fillippone]

Am I missing something, or we are lacking an “ETF inflow observer” thread here on the forum?
I have been discussing Grayscale stuff in my thread
Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask!

Is there a thread where we discuss all the details of the ETF shaenigans after approval?

[RewFrew]

Yes many people thought after Bitcoin ETF approval it’s price will bigger Jump but we are seeing Bitcoin price decreasing. I think it happening for short time. I also think it has big impact there has no doubt. Within short time Bitcoin price will come farrowed. Now Bitcoin price is low i think it happening for bigger jump.
And after sone days Bitcoin halving will happen then Bitcoin price will increase more and more. For big pump bitcoin now low. Any time Bitcoin will pump hardly many people expect it. I also think that.

[BenCodie]

They ain't ever putting that into bitcoin, BUT they could put some of it at Blackrocks ETF, which they will use to buy more bitcoins to cover it and it all helps us.

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

I believed this is something everyone overlooked. I thought that the ETF would be denied on the grounds that demand/holdings backing etf demand were not transparent, and yet here we are once again, just like 08'....investment vehicles that are built on opaque foundations. I'm sure this is going to end terribly for Bitcoin ETF buyers, and remind the Bitcoin ecosystem why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

I'm not saying it will cause permanent detriment but this is sure a new ball game that I am sure will bring new volatility that will confuse the crypto world over the next 1-3 years.

In my opinion, we should never trust the institutions. It's part of the reasons Bitcoin exists after all, right? If one thinks that institutionally backed spot ETFs will send imminently send Bitcoin to the moon, one may want to rethink the rationale behind that thought...

[rojan]

Yes many people thought after Bitcoin ETF approval it’s price will bigger Jump but we are seeing Bitcoin price decreasing. I think it happening for short time. I also think it has big impact there has no doubt. Within short time Bitcoin price will come farrowed. Now Bitcoin price is low i think it happening for bigger jump.
And after sone days Bitcoin halving will happen then Bitcoin price will increase more and more. For big pump bitcoin now low. Any time Bitcoin will pump hardly many people expect it. I also think that.

I hope to see the Bitcoin bull market in a few days. The Bitcoin market is very dumping now. We can use this time for investment if we want. If we can buy and hold Bitcoin during this dumping, when the Bitcoin market will pump a lot  I will make a profit. But I am a bit worried about the Bitcoin market. I am worried about whether the Bitcoin market will dump or pump in the next few months.

[Jating]

Discussions around Bitcoin’s ETF approval have been intensified for a long time now and most likely, we will get positive news about it in early January any day now. Yaay.  
In case of a positive outcome, a Bitcoin ETF approval will possibly result in a much bigger spike than many people are expecting, in my opinion.

It could be, "buy the rumor sell the news", and probably this is what happened in the market because as soon the the approval was finalized, price did spike. However, those speculators who says that we will have positive outcome may sell after the news, leading to a temporary price decline.

I'm also hearing in defense of the price dump to $39k, that "ETF Approval Priced In", but I have to disagree. The positive impact on the price has already occurred leading up to the decision? As much as this market is already huge, but there could still be some manipulation from whales and perhaps that what we see as well.

Price movements includes a lot of factors, pre or after approval. Just like what we have seen, we are slowly gaining again, it might have been due to this news again as investors expectations have matured. Or at the very least, bitcoin market as we  known is volatile, and short-term price fluctuations (dumping after the approval), should be considered in the context of the broader market trends and dynamics.

[Lanatsa]

Discussions around Bitcoin’s ETF approval have been intensified for a long time now and most likely, we will get positive news about it in early January any day now. Yaay.  
In case of a positive outcome, a Bitcoin ETF approval will possibly result in a much bigger spike than many people are expecting, in my opinion.

It could be, "buy the rumor sell the news", and probably this is what happened in the market because as soon the the approval was finalized, price did spike. However, those speculators who says that we will have positive outcome may sell after the news, leading to a temporary price decline.

I'm also hearing in defense of the price dump to $39k, that "ETF Approval Priced In", but I have to disagree. The positive impact on the price has already occurred leading up to the decision? As much as this market is already huge, but there could still be some manipulation from whales and perhaps that what we see as well.

Price movements includes a lot of factors, pre or after approval. Just like what we have seen, we are slowly gaining again, it might have been due to this news again as investors expectations have matured. Or at the very least, bitcoin market as we  known is volatile, and short-term price fluctuations (dumping after the approval), should be considered in the context of the broader market trends and dynamics.

Definitely on that way or the thing happened recently on which it did turn out on buy the rumor sell the news. For those who do get in line with this sentiment then they did make out those good decisions as the market did really make out such movement on which it did really cause up that negative into those who do make out those long positions considering that ETF is going to be approved out. High chances we do know on which lots had been anticipating for the price to be going up but we've seen the different thing on which did end up on the other side of things on which to those who had been able to benefit out
on counteracting on the things that supposed to happen. This is why it would really be that best that you should really know on how to ride on yourself with the waves.

Sentiments and fundamentals could really be that decieving sometimes on which it might look that positive but the market turns out to be on negative state and we've been able to
see it recently. 

[Abiky]

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

I believed this is something everyone overlooked. I thought that the ETF would be denied on the grounds that demand/holdings backing etf demand were not transparent, and yet here we are once again, just like 08'....investment vehicles that are built on opaque foundations. I'm sure this is going to end terribly for Bitcoin ETF buyers, and remind the Bitcoin ecosystem why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

I'm not saying it will cause permanent detriment but this is sure a new ball game that I am sure will bring new volatility that will confuse the crypto world over the next 1-3 years.

In my opinion, we should never trust the institutions. It's part of the reasons Bitcoin exists after all, right? If one thinks that institutionally backed spot ETFs will send imminently send Bitcoin to the moon, one may want to rethink the rationale behind that thought...

Institutional investment companies can provide a BTC address with their holdings for transparency. Just like Bitwise did. The fact the most aren't doing it is very suspicious. Maybe they're afraid their schemes and/or tactics will be visible to the public? They could be manipulating the market under our noses.

With BlackRock beginning to accumulate a large portion of BTC's supply, we should expect the worse. It's likely BTC will become centralized in the future. People are blind enough to believe spot ETFs are a good thing just because it promises to boost market prices in the long run. But what they don't realize is that this move gives more power to the government. The future of Bitcoin is uncertain, so we can only hope for the best. 

[BenCodie]

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

I believed this is something everyone overlooked. I thought that the ETF would be denied on the grounds that demand/holdings backing etf demand were not transparent, and yet here we are once again, just like 08'....investment vehicles that are built on opaque foundations. I'm sure this is going to end terribly for Bitcoin ETF buyers, and remind the Bitcoin ecosystem why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

I'm not saying it will cause permanent detriment but this is sure a new ball game that I am sure will bring new volatility that will confuse the crypto world over the next 1-3 years.

In my opinion, we should never trust the institutions. It's part of the reasons Bitcoin exists after all, right? If one thinks that institutionally backed spot ETFs will send imminently send Bitcoin to the moon, one may want to rethink the rationale behind that thought...

Institutional investment companies can provide a BTC address with their holdings for transparency. Just like Bitwise did. The fact the most aren't doing it is very suspicious. Maybe they're afraid their schemes and/or tactics will be visible to the public? They could be manipulating the market under our noses.

That's right, and I thought that the SEC would at least be smart enough to be able to have deduced this for themselves as well, prompting an ETF denial while more regulation enforced transparency. Either the SEC is privately lobbied/corrupt, or they're just plain ignorant. I wouldn't be surprised if both were true, however let's just say they're uninformed and ignorant.

I think that it's almost a certainty that these large firms are manipulating the market by soaking up demand for BTC and dumping what they accumulated in 2023 - which probably outweighs what is coming into the ETF. ETF buyers buy high, institutions sell on spot markets, ETF buyers sell after getting rekt, institutions rebuy...speculative but seems like the play at course.

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

I believed this is something everyone overlooked. I thought that the ETF would be denied on the grounds that demand/holdings backing etf demand were not transparent, and yet here we are once again, just like 08'....investment vehicles that are built on opaque foundations. I'm sure this is going to end terribly for Bitcoin ETF buyers, and remind the Bitcoin ecosystem why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

I'm not saying it will cause permanent detriment but this is sure a new ball game that I am sure will bring new volatility that will confuse the crypto world over the next 1-3 years.

In my opinion, we should never trust the institutions. It's part of the reasons Bitcoin exists after all, right? If one thinks that institutionally backed spot ETFs will send imminently send Bitcoin to the moon, one may want to rethink the rationale behind that thought...

With BlackRock beginning to accumulate a large portion of BTC's supply, we should expect the worse. It's likely BTC will become centralized in the future. People are blind enough to believe spot ETFs are a good thing just because it promises to boost market prices in the long run. But what they don't realize is that this move gives more power to the government. The future of Bitcoin is uncertain, so we can only hope for the best. 

BlackRock and other institutions will need to do some serious damage to the BTC price to be able to shake out enough holders to start to control it in an economic sense. If they want to control the ledger, they'll need to start taking a bite into mining (if they aren't already through subsidiaries of their massive umbrellas)

[Baofeng]

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

I believed this is something everyone overlooked. I thought that the ETF would be denied on the grounds that demand/holdings backing etf demand were not transparent, and yet here we are once again, just like 08'....investment vehicles that are built on opaque foundations. I'm sure this is going to end terribly for Bitcoin ETF buyers, and remind the Bitcoin ecosystem why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

I'm not saying it will cause permanent detriment but this is sure a new ball game that I am sure will bring new volatility that will confuse the crypto world over the next 1-3 years.

In my opinion, we should never trust the institutions. It's part of the reasons Bitcoin exists after all, right? If one thinks that institutionally backed spot ETFs will send imminently send Bitcoin to the moon, one may want to rethink the rationale behind that thought...

Institutional investment companies can provide a BTC address with their holdings for transparency. Just like Bitwise did. The fact the most aren't doing it is very suspicious. Maybe they're afraid their schemes and/or tactics will be visible to the public? They could be manipulating the market under our noses.

I thought that they have released their Bitcoin addresses to the public? But I could be wrong though. Nevertheless, we know that everything can be seen in blockchain, and it's just a matter of time that those investors or speculators will have to find out what is the addresses of this big institutions and then track where in it going, if there is manipulation as we have suspected from almost $49k->$39k and then buying spree.

With BlackRock beginning to accumulate a large portion of BTC's supply, we should expect the worse. It's likely BTC will become centralized in the future. People are blind enough to believe spot ETFs are a good thing just because it promises to boost market prices in the long run. But what they don't realize is that this move gives more power to the government. The future of Bitcoin is uncertain, so we can only hope for the best. 

The argument is that Bitcoin could be seen as legitimate by other government, groups and those who are skeptics on it. With Bitcoin Spot ETF approved by no less than the US SEC, it give credibility to it and who knows, who or what entities are going to invest their huge money on it. It's that Bitcoin could really be defined as asset per se with this approval. So it has pros and cons and it depends on how we see it.

[fillippone]

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

ETFs have to issue shares backed by physical Bitcoin. Breaking this equivalence would imply an agreement with custodian and Sponsor firms breaking the prospectus rules.
This also would be a criminal offence very easily verifiable by the most inefficient authority.
Definitely a bad plan.

There are a lot of people right now who are really focused on closely monitoring the whole process.
I strongly doubt they could ever plot an exit scam like this.

[BenCodie]

Exactly what regulation is forcing Blackrock (or any other institution for that matter) to actually back the etf units being created as a result of the demand inflow for ETFs imminently? How do we prove that the demand to date is owned 1:1 in BTC by Blackrock and other institutions? Is there a time requirement for the demand to be reflected? Every quarter after an audit of holdings perhaps? (Genuine question ... I don't think there is one, but I haven't taken a deep enough dive into the paperwork yet).

ETFs have to issue shares backed by physical Bitcoin. Breaking this equivalence would imply an agreement with custodian and Sponsor firms breaking the prospectus rules.
This also would be a criminal offence very easily verifiable by the most inefficient authority.
Definitely a bad plan.

There are a lot of people right now who are really focused on closely monitoring the whole process.
I strongly doubt they could ever plot an exit scam like this.

What I described is not an exit scam, it"s marker manipulation....
- ETF buyers at 40-50k: Do not buy the physical bitcoin (or, back it with existing holdings).
- Use excess holdings to reduce the price to 20-40k, at which point honour any sells to compound the selling effect and pickup coins previously demanded at 40-50k for discounts nearing half the price
- Profit...

There is nothing stopping institutions from doing this. No government, no agency, no regulation. Yes, it's unlikely they'll rug. However that isn't at all the point. The point is that there's nothing keeping these institutions in line with exactly how spot demand should be translated (that is, 1 unit bought, 1 bitcoin bought simultaneously).

[Abiky]

BlackRock and other institutions will need to do some serious damage to the BTC price to be able to shake out enough holders to start to control it in an economic sense. If they want to control the ledger, they'll need to start taking a bite into mining (if they aren't already through subsidiaries of their massive umbrellas)

BlackRock and similar institutions have a lot of money to do whatever they want. It's likely they're already involved in the mining process. While owning 51% of the BTC hashrate seems difficult, it's not impossible. All it takes is for BTC to experience a prolonged "bloodbath" in market prices for these companies to control it. Whenever that will happen or not, is yet to be seen.

As long as there's a community fighting for decentralization, BTC won't be going anywhere soon. One would hope it will render Fiat currencies obsolete in the future. Just my opinion.

[fillippone]

BlackRock and similar institutions have a lot of money to do whatever they want. It's likely they're already involved in the mining process. While owning 51% of the BTC hashrate seems difficult, it's not impossible. All it takes is for BTC to experience a prolonged "bloodbath" in market prices for these companies to control it. Whenever that will happen or not, is yet to be seen.

Blackrock for sure it is not interested in mining. Fidelity, on the other hand, for sure owns some mining farm:

Fidelity Investments Is Mining for Cryptocurrency

At the 2017 Consensus conference, Fidelity's CEO Abigail Johnson said, "We set up a small bitcoin and ethereum mining operation…that miraculously now is actually making a lot of money." The company started mining to learn more about the process.

Fidelity is quite different from other ETF issuers, I think their take on bitcoin is much more genuine.

[Lucius]

BlackRock and similar institutions have a lot of money to do whatever they want.
~snip~

They have their clients' money that they can't just throw around - and all those trillions of $ they manage were never meant to end up in Bitcoin as some imagined. Especially not in BTC mining, which will become less and less profitable, considering that after the next halving, only about 450 BTC will be mined per day, which is literally just dust compared to the 19.6 million BTC that are already in circulation.

In addition, in less than 10 years, 99% of all coins will be mined, and I believe that even before that, many miners will move to some new, more profitable projects.

[Jating]

Discussions around Bitcoin’s ETF approval have been intensified for a long time now and most likely, we will get positive news about it in early January any day now. Yaay.  
In case of a positive outcome, a Bitcoin ETF approval will possibly result in a much bigger spike than many people are expecting, in my opinion.

It could be, "buy the rumor sell the news", and probably this is what happened in the market because as soon the the approval was finalized, price did spike. However, those speculators who says that we will have positive outcome may sell after the news, leading to a temporary price decline.

I'm also hearing in defense of the price dump to $39k, that "ETF Approval Priced In", but I have to disagree. The positive impact on the price has already occurred leading up to the decision? As much as this market is already huge, but there could still be some manipulation from whales and perhaps that what we see as well.

Price movements includes a lot of factors, pre or after approval. Just like what we have seen, we are slowly gaining again, it might have been due to this news again as investors expectations have matured. Or at the very least, bitcoin market as we  known is volatile, and short-term price fluctuations (dumping after the approval), should be considered in the context of the broader market trends and dynamics.

Definitely on that way or the thing happened recently on which it did turn out on buy the rumor sell the news. For those who do get in line with this sentiment then they did make out those good decisions as the market did really make out such movement on which it did really cause up that negative into those who do make out those long positions considering that ETF is going to be approved out. High chances we do know on which lots had been anticipating for the price to be going up but we've seen the different thing on which did end up on the other side of things on which to those who had been able to benefit out
on counteracting on the things that supposed to happen. This is why it would really be that best that you should really know on how to ride on yourself with the waves.

Sentiments and fundamentals could really be that decieving sometimes on which it might look that positive but the market turns out to be on negative state and we've been able to
see it recently. 

Sentiments maybe, but I think if we will just stick to the fundamentals, then we might see what is really going from the background and as I investors we should learn how to read between the lines, from FOMO to market manipulation and buy the rumor sell the news. But right now, since the announcement, no big movement but at least the price has gone from the dump of $39k to $42k-$43k at the start of this month.

So not expect a big jump, maybe we can see the price going on another sideways. Of course, huge money is going to flow into the market. This institutions client are big, worth billions of dollars combine and so it's a big possibility that the ecosystem will thrive in the long run or at least we should observed right after the block halving this April.

[Abiky]

They have their clients' money that they can't just throw around - and all those trillions of $ they manage were never meant to end up in Bitcoin as some imagined. Especially not in BTC mining, which will become less and less profitable, considering that after the next halving, only about 450 BTC will be mined per day, which is literally just dust compared to the 19.6 million BTC that are already in circulation.

In addition, in less than 10 years, 99% of all coins will be mined, and I believe that even before that, many miners will move to some new, more profitable projects.

Mining will only become less profitable over time if market prices decline or remain as is. But it's very unlikely this will happen, especially when demand is rising at a very fast pace. When there's limited supply of coins and high demand, prices should go all the way to the moon. It will become more difficult to "attack" (or control) Bitcoin with 51% of the hashrate since costs of doing so will rise over time. What BlackRock and similar entities can do is accumulate a large portion of the supply. But they will never (hopefully) be able to control the network itself.

If things get tough, developers can simply increase the supply or agree with miners to censor/block institutional investment companies from using their BTC. It all comes down to consensus. No one knows what will happen in the future, so lets hope for the best.