UK regulators drive demands to BTC due to ETNs

[electronicash]

since the ETFs were approved in the US, the BTC demand has been driving the price up since the start of the year.

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is also up to allow traders to have access to crypto-backed exchange-traded notes which will surely drive more demands not just to BTC but some other crypto projects. this is apart from the looming approval of ETH ETF in the US which is just a matter of when it will be approved but it's speculated to be approved this May 2024. BTC to $100K before June is probably possible.

LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Britain's financial watchdog on Monday approved the launch of crypto-backed exchange-traded notes for professional investors, becoming the latest regulator to allow digital asset products while trying to shield retail investors.
Such products - bonds issued by financial institutions that track the performance of underlying assets - will only be available to investment firms and credit institutions approved to operate in financial markets, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said in a statement.

UK allows professional investors to use crypto exchange-traded notes
https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-financial-watchdog-will-not-block-requests-crypto-exchange-traded-notes-2024-03-11/

[avikz]

More corporate presence in the crypto world means more centralisation. Just for perspective, blackrock already owns more Bitcoins then Microstrategy.

https://business.outlookindia.com/cryptocurrency/blackrock-bitcoin-etf-now-holds-more-btc-than-microstrategy

I can see that the Bitcoin market is not going towards what Mr. Satoshi had envisioned. It is slowly becoming corporate money then common people's money.

[Z-tight]

More corporate presence in the crypto world means more centralisation.

I do not agree with you on this, BTC has always been a permissionless currency, meaning any individual or institution is free to buy as much BTC as they like. Institutions like BlackRock, MicroStrategy and the rest have purchased a lot of BTC's, but it does not make BTC centralized, because it does not put BTC under their control.

I can see that the Bitcoin market is not going towards what Mr. Satoshi had envisioned. It is slowly becoming corporate money then common people's money.

Common people can still buy BTC, but they do not have the financial power to buy too much, nothing more than that. I also don't think BTC is 'common people's' money, it is 'everybody's money'.

[avikz]

More corporate presence in the crypto world means more centralisation.

I do not agree with you on this, BTC has always been a permissionless currency, meaning any individual or institution is free to buy as much BTC as they like. Institutions like BlackRock, MicroStrategy and the rest have purchased a lot of BTC's, but it does not make BTC centralized, because it does not put BTC under their control.

I can see that the Bitcoin market is not going towards what Mr. Satoshi had envisioned. It is slowly becoming corporate money then common people's money.

Common people can still buy BTC, but they do not have the financial power to buy too much, nothing more than that. I also don't think BTC is 'common people's' money, it is 'everybody's money'.

You are referring to the current situation. I am referring to the future. Imagine if every country starts approving Bitcoin related exchange traded instruments, how much Bitcoins will be controlled by these big corporates! That's where the concern is.

The amount of money these big corporate have, common people cannot beat them. It will be very easy for the corporates to control a majority of the supply which will allowed into control the Bitcoin market at their will.

[franky1]

I do not agree with you on this, BTC has always been a permissionless currency,

its not a permissionless currency

firstly.. consensus = consent of the masses
secondly transaction signatures = requires permission to change ownership by the key holder
thirdly... core now are the defacto protocol controllers.. and they have alot of moderation to decide what code gets to change the protocol

if bitcoin was permissionless there would be no rules and bitcoin would be broke. anyone could take anyones elses coins and the protocol hard rules could change without consensus(no 21m hard limit in permissionless world)

..
those spouting "permissionless" are those that want the rules to be softened, removed to make bitcoin more of a headache to validate, so that they can promote other systems and subnetworks and other value store methods people should use instead of the bitcoin network

meaning any individual or institution is free to buy as much BTC as they like. Institutions like BlackRock, MicroStrategy and the rest have purchased

bitcoin doesnt have a coded limit to suggest only 2btc per address.. but HUMANS that live in a country have to follow the laws applied to humans
so government laws apply to humans
having/wanting to have bitcoin does not void a human of a countries laws

[Z-tight]

its not a permissionless currency

if bitcoin was permissionless there would be no rules and bitcoin would be broke. anyone could take anyones elses coins and the protocol hard rules could change without consensus(no 21m hard limit in permissionless world)

It is very easy to understand what i mean when i say the BTC network is permissionless, and i think you purposely choose to misunderstand it. BTC is permissionless because it is open to everyone, you don't need the permission of any person or central authority to be a part of the network. Anyone can become a node and contribute to 'consensus' through validating tx's, anyone can also become a miner and confirm tx's if they have the resources and gears. Permissionless does not mean the absence of rules, or that anyone can take anyone else's coins, i don't know how you have come about with that, it simply means anyone is free to contribute to consensus.

having/wanting to have bitcoin does not void a human of a countries laws

And who said it does?

[franky1]

its not a permissionless currency

if bitcoin was permissionless there would be no rules and bitcoin would be broke. anyone could take anyones elses coins and the protocol hard rules could change without consensus(no 21m hard limit in permissionless world)

It is very easy to understand what i mean when i say the BTC network is permissionless, and i think you purposely choose to misunderstand it. BTC is permissionless because it is open to everyone, you don't need the permission of any person or central authority to be a part of the network. Anyone can become a node and contribute to 'consensus' through validating tx's, anyone can also become a miner and confirm tx's if they have the resources and gears.

firstly. having access to be a follower of cores political decision of bitcoin rules, is different to not requiring to be a core ass kisser to be able to upgrade the network, or do stuff outside of what core control

yes the network does not see a countries laws. the network has no eyes or brain.. but the HUMANS are locked to the laws of the country the HUMANS walk on and live in.
the code is controlled by humans. and yes those humans(core devs) that control the protocol make political decisions that affect others
bitcoin does have a cenral point of failure, they even branded themselves as such(CORE)

its like alcohol. its just fluid.. yet there are laws that control who can drink alcohol and where they can drink and purchase it. which come with repurcusions on the HUMANS that try to gain alcohol outside of the laws. (moonshine people got arrested, underage people get caught, retailers selling it to underage people get caught)
alcohol has no eyes or brain, but laws still apply to humans that want alcohol
where by the alcohol producers control what % volume the alcohol is and the rate of distribution, where by a user cant just get 100% proof alcohol unless they ask for permission from breweries or fork off their own distillery which then is not using the branded brewerys alcohol
thus users of a alcohol brand are subserviant if they want to stick with a alcohol brand, by being a follower of breweries rules... or government rules that apply to a brand or the whole industry.. so there are permissions

things have changed since ~2013. its time you update yourself on the current situation..

having/wanting to have bitcoin does not void a human of a countries laws

And who said it does?

you are trying to suggest people can freely use bitcoin..

Permissionless does not mean the absence of rules, or that anyone can take anyone else's coins, i don't know how you have come about with that, it simply means anyone is free to contribute to consensus.

YOU are the one calling it permissionless..
being a user is different to permissionless
but thanks for admitting there are rules, where people(humans) do need permission.. for example the bitlicence requires businesses to get a licence to operate with bitcoin in NYC.. a licence is a permit.. a permit is permission agreement

..
even read this topic
people cant just turn their BTC into a ETF in the UK. they cant freely do many things with BTC without government agreement(PERMISSION)

..
people can freely become members of a gym thats open 24/7.. BUT..
being a gym user/member is different to permissionless access to a gym

..core no longer needs consensus of its users to change bitcoin(they softened many aspects of cores rules).. but users cant change bitcoin without cores permission(reference: REKT)

things have changed since ~2013+. its time you update yourself on the current situation..

[slaman29]

its not a permissionless currency

I think it still counts. I hate to use terms like decentralized and permissionless, none of these words were even in the discussions of early Bitcoin I believe.

But consensus is different from permission.

Permission means needing approval to use. Anyone can use Bitcoin, they just need to follow the rules.

Permission means before you can even go on the network, someone needs to allow you access.

[franky1]

its not a permissionless currency

I think it still counts. I hate to use terms like decentralized and permissionless, none of these words were even in the discussions of early Bitcoin I believe.

But consensus is different from permission.

Permission means needing approval to use. Anyone can use Bitcoin, they just need to follow the rules.
Permission means before you can even go on the network, someone needs to allow you access.

there is no doorman asking for a permit/ticket at a grocery store but you still need to follow the rules of the grocery store or else get banned(permission revoked)

..
its much like the silly words of "anonymity" yet bitcoin does not ask for peoples birth certificate, its still not anonymous.. thats why the word pseudonymous is used instead.. because bitcoin although it does not ask for identity. it also does not scrape and remove peoples identity from links to it if humans are idiots and reveal their identity attachment to bitcoin

so its not anonymous nor permissionless.. there is a difference..

again things have changed over the years. people do have to follow the rules, and in recent years people have less control of the rules nor able to make as many proposals freely without hitting a moderation policy of a central core group

here is the most funny part
https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

Bitcoin Core is a community-driven free software project, released under the open source MIT license.

https://opensource.org/license/mit

Permission is hereby granted

fun fact
COPA right now this week are in UK court fighting a scammer and fraudster(CSW) to protect bitcoins licence(MIT) permissions..
if csw wins he can revoke the current permissions of MIT and change it to his stupid IP licencing and require CSW permission instead of MIT

..
there are reasons why "open" and "pseudonymous" are used instead of "permissionless" and "anonymous"

it goes for idiots abusing the word "censorship resistant" in regards to transactions
mining pools are not forced to accept every transaction, they CHOOSE what they include and NOT include
even cores code has reasons to: 'reject', 'orphan', 'drop', 'evict', 'not-relay', 'invalidate', 'restrict', 'ignore' transactions
so bitcoin transactions are not "censorship resistant"

for transactions to get into a block they need the permission of the mining pool(s) that create blocks and the permission of the protocol that the transaction meets the rules(though rules have in recent years been softened, but were not so soft initially)

[Dunamisx]

since the ETFs were approved in the US, the BTC demand has been driving the price up since the start of the year.

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is also up to allow traders to have access to crypto-backed exchange-traded notes which will surely drive more demands not just to BTC but some other crypto projects. this is apart from the looming approval of ETH ETF in the US which is just a matter of when it will be approved but it's speculated to be approved this May 2024. BTC to $100K before June is probably possible.

LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Britain's financial watchdog on Monday approved the launch of crypto-backed exchange-traded notes for professional investors, becoming the latest regulator to allow digital asset products while trying to shield retail investors.
Such products - bonds issued by financial institutions that track the performance of underlying assets - will only be available to investment firms and credit institutions approved to operate in financial markets, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said in a statement.

UK allows professional investors to use crypto exchange-traded notes
https://www.reuters.com/technology/uk-financial-watchdog-will-not-block-requests-crypto-exchange-traded-notes-2024-03-11/

Why are they doing all these when they are giving a ban on exchanges, are they showing interest in disguise in other to chase away all the exchanges and then takeover, thereby making the trading of bitcoin on platforms a centralized ordeal or they are just being more centered on what they will regulate and earn tax from as they have always been so strict when it comes to the issue of paying taxes, honestly i was thinking the next they could do was to ban bitcoin in UK since they have achieved that of the exchanges from operations, but this is showing their more commitment in having interest towards bitcoin but they want t=it been regulated, which they may never achieve completely.

[Lucius]

~snip~
I can see that the Bitcoin market is not going towards what Mr. Satoshi had envisioned. It is slowly becoming corporate money then common people's money.

Bitcoin stopped being what Satoshi had in mind a long time ago, but we can't blame companies, funds or governments for that, but the real blame lies with ordinary people who didn't accept that idea. There was enough time for ordinary people to own most of the Bitcoin in circulation before powerful people and companies started buying them, but even if that happened today, those same people would be very happy to exchange their BTC for good old fiat because the profit is simply irresistible.

There is no doubt that over time millions of BTC will end up in the possession of those who care about nothing but profit, but I also think that it is the responsibility of each of us to prevent them from buying everything. If they want Bitcoin so badly, then we must want it even more.

[thecodebear]

More corporate presence in the crypto world means more centralisation. Just for perspective, blackrock already owns more Bitcoins then Microstrategy.

https://business.outlookindia.com/cryptocurrency/blackrock-bitcoin-etf-now-holds-more-btc-than-microstrategy

I can see that the Bitcoin market is not going towards what Mr. Satoshi had envisioned. It is slowly becoming corporate money then common people's money.

That is literally not how decentralization works lol

Anyone is allowed to buy Bitcoin. If that wasn't the case Bitcoin would be a pretty terrible currency. And yet you are complaining because everyone is allowed to buy Bitcoin.

Centralization / decentralization is not at all what you are talking about. I really don't get why so many people on here don't understand this.

[slaman29]

<>
here is the most funny part
https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

Bitcoin Core is a community-driven free software project, released under the open source MIT license.

https://opensource.org/license/mit

Permission is hereby granted

<>
there are reasons why "open" and "pseudonymous" are used instead of "permissionless" and "anonymous"

<>

In this case, you have a point, and maybe because English is not my natural language, it just seems to me that permissionless means you don't need approval, but in this case, if access can be barred, I guess you can't say permission.

I like the idea of open but open areas in public anyway also have rules right? So maybe open is correct. But for sure anyone who ever said anonymous is dumb. I think too many people using too many flashy words.

[franky1]

I like the idea of open but open areas in public anyway also have rules right? So maybe open is correct. But for sure anyone who ever said anonymous is dumb. I think too many people using too many flashy words.

the most pathetic thing i find when idiots over-use terms like "permissionless" and "censorship resistant" is not just that they are repeating words they heard else where but put no rational thought to. so just repeat what they heard without understanding, like a brainless echo chamber of words that dont fit bitcoins description.. but they trust the person that said it before then due to some emotional trust

..but the group that starts these silly words think they need to exaggerate and promote bitcoin on this forum using words that over promise and dont meet reality, when in fact those reading this forum have already heard about bitcoin to even have found this forum, thus dont need the exaggerated snake oil sales pitches..

so the reality, is:
bitcoin is open not permissionless
bitcoin is coded rule, not censorship resistant
bitcoin is pseudonymous not anonymous
and bitcoin has become more centralised especially with the development politics

its better to mention the reality of issues and risks so people can do their due diligence and know where the weaknesses are to ensure things dont get softened/weakened further. rather than being told by cultish liars that things are perfect and people should just sleep follow and sheep follow things into a worse direction due to lies

i personally prefer bitcoin before 2013, it was more open and free of hindrances than bitcoin is presently.