Bitcoin Market and Blackrock

[Lucius]

~snip~
However, the buyers do not actually control the BTC, it is still in custody of Blackrock. And no amount of BTC in your custody gives you any mining power. That only happens with Proof of Stake like Ethereum.

As far as I know, BR and most companies that provide spot ETFs services use external companies to store the coins they buy for their clients. In that sense, neither their clients nor they have complete control over those coins - and in fact both can hope that whoever is holding them won't be hacked.

However, with the beginning of offering BTC ETFs, BR started buying large shares in mining companies, so it may seem to some that they are trying to gain some kind of control - especially if we know that their official position is that in the case of a hard fork, they will not necessarily follow the chain that will be supported by the community.

Of course, all of this leaves a lot of room for speculation, but one thing is certain - they and the like have no sympathy for BTC except to extract as much profit as possible from all this.

[WeedGoW]

The lawsuit also highlights that BlackRock's Bitcoin strategy aims to manipulate and control the cryptocurrency, potentially threatening its decentralized nature.

BlackRock has always wanted to control Bitcoin from the very moments that they got interested in Bitcoin and started buying it but their plans are going to fail as Bitcoin can't be controlled. They can succeed for Bitcoin price to be manipulated for some few days but that isn't going to last long a the community is still going to win above the control freaks that thinks that they can control everything. BlackRock and the government aren't different, they all have the same purpose to centralized Bitcoin and as BlackRock has come in like they're the saviour of the market, most people have been welcoming them without knowing their true intentions but they won't win.

You can not even think of Blackrock and big companies like it are trying to enter the market. But Bitcoin is real so that it is not a centrifugal position and controls its market in general is extremely difficult and impossible to come to hand in some companies. Blackcock or other institutions are able to control the price of bitcoin for a while the market is able to control for a while from the perspective of the unit, it can be a temporary strategy. Which will never last long. What is the main attraction of bitcoin is its conscience where a particular power or organization cannot fully control. Someone mentioned in your post. Government and big institutions want to establish control using their power, but Blackrock and the government’s purpose may be the same, but the central nature of Bitcoin limits their activities. The cryptocurrency community takes a strong position for freedom and transparency, which can hinder any activities of blackrock or government.

[slaman29]

~snip~
However, the buyers do not actually control the BTC, it is still in custody of Blackrock. And no amount of BTC in your custody gives you any mining power. That only happens with Proof of Stake like Ethereum.

As far as I know, BR and most companies that provide spot ETFs services use external companies to store the coins they buy for their clients. In that sense, neither their clients nor they have complete control over those coins - and in fact both can hope that whoever is holding them won't be hacked.

However, with the beginning of offering BTC ETFs, BR started buying large shares in mining companies, so it may seem to some that they are trying to gain some kind of control - especially if we know that their official position is that in the case of a hard fork, they will not necessarily follow the chain that will be supported by the community.

Of course, all of this leaves a lot of room for speculation, but one thing is certain - they and the like have no sympathy for BTC except to extract as much profit as possible from all this.

100%. I don't know the details but the external companies usually are like those who use multisig where the main owners control 2/3 or anyway all the keys majority needed, but with 1 in the control of the external. So, in a way, shared custody. Neither the clients have even 1 key.

I don't know how the scene changed in past years with ETFs but anyway, regarding the fork control. BR should see the lesson of the last big BTC forks. They can follow the chain whichever they want but they can follow the fate of BCH

[Iranus]

As far as I know, BR and most companies that provide spot ETFs services use external companies to store the coins they buy for their clients. In that sense, neither their clients nor they have complete control over those coins - and in fact both can hope that whoever is holding them won't be hacked.

.

Coinbase is the sole entity responsible for storing bitcoin for 10 bitcoin ETFs, including Blackrock. But to date, they have never released any on-chain data to prove that they are holding the exact amount of bitcoin that the ETFs have purchased. For that reason, the community is skeptical about Coinbase's ETF custody service. But then to reassure customers, BR also quickly proposed a regulation that customers can withdraw bitcoin from Coinabse to their non-custodial wallet at any time and the processing time should not exceed 12 hours.

Bitcoin ETFs have been in operation for over a year and so far have not encountered any problems or complaints from bitcoin investors through ETFs.



https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/spot-bitcoin-etf#:~:text=Ten%20of%20the%2012%20currently,COIN)%20as%20their%20Bitcoin%20custodian.

[Lucius]

~snip~
I don't know how the scene changed in past years with ETFs but anyway, regarding the fork control. BR should see the lesson of the last big BTC forks. They can follow the chain whichever they want but they can follow the fate of BCH

I believe they think they are powerful enough (and if you manage approximately $10 trillion in assets you definitely have the power) to steer the public and the BTC community in the direction they want. When we compare the power of those who participated in the attack on BTC during the fork wars and those who today have (according to public data) over 1.1 million BTC and shares in mining companies, then we can conclude that they are far more dangerous if they decide to create their own version of BTC.


@Iranus, thanks for the confirmation, it's already a well-known thing, but I think many people don't understand how things are actually set up. It is wrong to think that BR as a company buys BTC for itself (although they may be doing so), because they buy for their clients using the aforementioned CEX, which apparently only moves coins from its hot wallets to its cold wallets.

[tbct_mt2]

I believe they think they are powerful enough (and if you manage approximately $10 trillion in assets you definitely have the power) to steer the public and the BTC community in the direction they want. When we compare the power of those who participated in the attack on BTC during the fork wars and those who today have (according to public data) over 1.1 million BTC and shares in mining companies, then we can conclude that they are far more dangerous if they decide to create their own version of BTC.

They have bigger power to do manipulation and attacks if they want but create their new own version of Bitcoin. In history, Bitcoin has a famous biggest fork, Bitcoin Cash, and assume BlackRock can do the same or better with a fork from Bitcoin, to have their own version of Bitcoin, like Bitcoin BlackRock Vision, will it succeed after all?

Start with their main purpose of manipulation, they need as most centralization as they can, because it supports their manipulative activities. I don't really think there are many Bitcoiners will support and use that Bitcoin BlackRock Vision. True Bitcoiners dislike centralization and I am sure they have no interest in a centralized new version of Bitcoin, Bitcoin BlackRock Vision.

[slaman29]

<>

I believe they think they are powerful enough (and if you manage approximately $10 trillion in assets you definitely have the power) to steer the public and the BTC community in the direction they want. When we compare the power of those who participated in the attack on BTC during the fork wars and those who today have (according to public data) over 1.1 million BTC and shares in mining companies, then we can conclude that they are far more dangerous if they decide to create their own version of BTC.
<>

Well, I guess we are going to find out one day soon maybe, if there will be another fork war. Like you said, they are powerful enough, maybe even more so in a few years or for the next cycle.

I still believe, if there really is a thing as a BTC community, and I think others believe this, that money alone can't change minds. Dangerous territory for sure, but I also like to say BTC needs all these wars to prove it really is super resilient. I remember people predicting BTC would die in the last fork war. It came out way stronger. The same will happen again, we have to believe.