"Blockchain is useful, Bitcoin is not" — How do you respond to this?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

Hard money does nothing other than sitting and appreciating. Gold goes up because people understand it can buy you more overtime.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

[Satofan44]

I was asking something pretty simple: BlackRock, JPMorgan, Franklin Templeton — they're all building tokenized stuff on blockchain now. Yields, regulation, the whole package. And it's growing fast.

Which is complete bullshit and has no purpose of existing. You could do that already on centralized blockchains called databases. Pilot projects on public blockchains will never lead to anything. If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need. You are falling for the latest trendy buzzwords relating to RWA stuff. How many scams and market cycles does it take for you to learn your lesson?

Meanwhile Bitcoin just sits there. No yield, no nothing. Price goes up because people think price will go up.

False. Yield is a scam, and Bitcoin has literally been invented as a solution to the inflation (read POS and other shit).

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

Nothing. One has nothing to do with each other. Did you come here to promote some shitcoin scam while pretending to ask "legitimate" questions? Literally there have been hundreds of buzzword relating to blockchain uses since the earliest cycle. ICOs were going to change the world, people being able to issue their own tokens, NFTs -- how about the world will put all supply chains on VeChain or some other bullshit? Wake the fuck up, you are brainwashed after taking a bucket load of blue pills.

But what happens when the system takes the tech and builds something most investors actually prefer?

Not a single altcoin has tech that competes with Bitcoin, get the fuck out of here centralized shitcoin promoter.

So what happens when those institutional products start competing for the same money? That's what I wanted to discuss.

What other institutional product can compete with Bitcoin, an apolitical, counterparty-free, permissionless asset with a fixed supply? There is no other product that checks these. If BlackRock creates a token, it will have counterparty risk, it will not be permissionless and you'll have to trust the morals of BlackRock for keeping the supply fixed.

This is not even an advanced concept, therefore an inability to understand it implies malicious motives. Do not treat every user here seriously, instead always ask what motivates them to write something. As you can see, most often the answers are easy. Either they are spamming (which is more obvious in spam super sections like Gambling) or they have malicious motives for which they pretend to ask questions or be unable to understand the answers.

[d5000]

If it works out well, why should they use Ethereum when they can do the same on their own private blockchain? By issuing their own centralized blockchain they can get all the features of centralized Ethereum without any downside, it comes with an added bonus of having complete control which is what they need.

Simple - because Ethereum is already integrated by most exchanges, so they don't need to beg on being listed there and perhaps even developing stuff for the exchange. And you don't have to bother about neither consensus nor some regulatory stuff I mentioned in the other post.

The price is paid by the customers - in the form of gas fees (for the consensus). It's all about outsourcing costs for the centralized providers. Thus, from the point of view of the company who issues the RWA asset it makes sense.

But the total cost of the system is much higher than implementing everything on a totally centralized structure.

Everything else is already answered in both your and my posts about that topic. OP either hasn't read them (I don't believe that) or purposefully ignores the arguments because they can't counter them

[alani123]

Well, I think if Ethetrum keeps becoming more popular as a network eventually it will be put to test in terms of its immutability.

So the current administration already tried to play hardball with tornado cash and its Devs. But what if they try to also put validators in trouble? Will they try to force validators to run OFAC lists again? Maybe even force validators to ban tornado cash? Perhaps even go after Vitalik and other project developers on the platform? Make exchanges illegal again?

The government is going to put on a lot of pressure and surely it's something to observe if it happens. Maybe Ethetrum would budge more easily and maybe that's why banks like it more.