Ray Dalio critic explanation of the reason central banks will not touch bitcoin

[BlackHatCoiner]

I am assuming Dalio is referring to the fact that banks are usually evil and do not want their transfers to be monitored and questioned by the public eye.

The transfers can be hidden. People buy from centralized exchanges all the time, and most of these internal transactions are not sent on-chain. A group of banks that want to buy bitcoin would go through an Over-The-Counter desk, and a custodian would be trusted to hold the traded assets for a period. The middleman does act as a mixer this way. For example, Saylor buys in smaller chunks, and custodians hold it for some period; I'm not entirely sure if Strategy self-custodies the bitcoin, they have not disclosed this, if I'm not mistaken.

For a group of banks, it could easily be settled with internal OTC transactions, and one big withdrawal transaction that does not disclose which bank owns what.

Trezor can sign Wasabi coinjoin transactions. Also, banks don't want to let everybody (other competitor banks included) what they do with the money. They could be okay reporting how much the have but that's something completely different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember Trezor removing the coinjoin feature for regulatory reasons.

[Upgrade00]

Funny, he said "lack of privacy" is the reason central banks won't touch it, while that is one of the reasons why central banks and other regulatory bodies allow it at all in the first place. We've seen what regulatory bodies did to privacy coins like Monero. <snip>

They are basically looking for a one way mirror where only they can see records of all financial dealings and have it all ties to an identity, being open source and pseudoanonymous Bitcoin prevents both from happening making it not ideal. I hope the fud does keep banks away, the less government interference we get, the better.

[EluguHcman]

Bitcoin has shown itself to be a safe haven if you do not spend it, bitcoin is not correlated with stocks but people are only deceiving themselves, they will know this later. We have seen gold also having correction with stock many times if we should agree that bitcoin is having correction with stocks. When bitcoin go above all stocks in the next 10 to 15 years, he will understand. He said bitcoin market is small. Is $1.6 trillion market small? If banks start buying bitcoin, the marketcap will still increase. He thought gold was not at this price before? We can easily know critics.

If with a high and genuine esteem of professionalism, Ray Dallo would will not criticise Bitcoin for its market cap when known that Bitcoin had acquired a market capitalization of $2.407 trillion as at July 2025 when it traded over $122K.
Then Bitcoin was also able to surpass Apple, NVIDIA and Microsoft as at that time according to The book website. Then Bitcoin also emerged the 5th top global asset.

Bitcoin had never been a dulling project to store values right from time. Perhaps safe haven assets means assets that get you easily navigating in both security and potential values which Bitcoin had proven.
I don't see any validation of the Ray pointing hands on the transparency, unless he is not fit-in for the Blockchain.
So he is up to nothing but to spike criticisms in the Bitcoin market s

[lontivero]

Trezor can sign Wasabi coinjoin transactions. Also, banks don't want to let everybody (other competitor banks included) what they do with the money. They could be okay reporting how much the have but that's something completely different.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember Trezor removing the coinjoin feature for regulatory reasons.

Trezor disabled the feature in their Trezor Suite but the Trezor Hardware Wallet still can sign coinjoins automatically.

[Free Market Capitalist]

I know Ray Dalio is just saying his own. He said bitcoin transaction is transparent and available to the public, that the government do not want that, which would be the reason the central banks will not touch bitcoin. He said other things, you can read it yourself on X or in the quote.

https://x.com/RayDalio/status/2053938354425602279

...

Third, it’s a relatively small and controllable market, whereas gold stands alone. There is only one gold.

Ultimately, gold is more widely held, deeply established, and still plays a central role in the global system.

Well, we know that Ray Dallio is a gold bug. But specifically on this point, I think there’s another reason. There was a time when people speculated that central banks would eventually buy Bitcoin and that it might even replace gold in their reserves, but if we look at recent years, many central banks have continued to accumulate gold and some at a fast pace. Furthermore, unlike what happened in Bitcoin’s first decade, gold has appreciated significantly, especially over the last three years, while Bitcoin’s returns in recent years have leveled off considerably. Do you remember that when Trump won, there was speculation that gold from Fort Knox could be swapped to buy Bitcoin in what they call “budget-neutral ways” for the strategic reserve? Today, that’s not even on the table.

[Alpha Marine]

I hope the fud does keep banks away, the less government interference we get, the better.

The FUD doesn't keep the banks away. The banks are people who know the best ways to make money and secure wealth. They don't stay away because of the FUD; they stay away because it goes against what they stand for. If they endorse something like Bitcoin and more people start following self-custody, this would take deposits away from the banks, and they don't want that. So even if they go into Bitcoin, they won't promote self-custody. They would do it in a similar way to ETF, where the customer buys Bitcoin but the company holds it for them.

Only people who don't understand much about the financial market and bitcoin would fall for these kinds of FUD. Any unbiased person can see the inconsistencies in the arguments.

[Darker45]

I think what Ray Dalio's saying is true. Bitcoin is transparent. Central banks aren't. Central banks don't want that the public would know every single transaction they're involved in. Central banks have clandestine transactions that are done according to secret agreements. Bitcoin's public ledger doesn't support such behaviors and tendencies. This might indeed be one big reason why central banks don't want Bitcoin.

I also agree that Bitcoin's market cap remains relatively small. $1.6 trillion is small. BlackRock alone manages more than $12 trillion. Gold's is $32 trillion. Silver's is above $4 trillion. But this isn't necessarily a bad statement. That's just a fact. And this is precisely one reason why Bitcoin remains attractive. The room for growth is huge. Its adoption level is still low.

[sunsilk]

First, Bitcoin lacks privacy. Transactions can be monitored and potentially controlled, which is why central banks aren’t looking to hold it.

Did he really said this? First, transactions are definitely controlled by the senders or whoever is making the transaction from point a(sender) to point b(receiver).

What he's expecting? out of nowhere transactions will be made by no control by a human or even an AI?

And as for the banks, he's saying that they're more into privacy and that's why more money laundering happens inside their institutions.

Lastly, he's saying that it's controlled and the government likes all the control and that doesn't add up and kind of mixed up and confusing.

[Oshosondy]

Well, we know that Ray Dallio is a gold bug. But specifically on this point, I think there’s another reason. There was a time when people speculated that central banks would eventually buy Bitcoin and that it might even replace gold in their reserves, but if we look at recent years, many central banks have continued to accumulate gold and some at a fast pace. Furthermore, unlike what happened in Bitcoin’s first decade, gold has appreciated significantly, especially over the last three years, while Bitcoin’s returns in recent years have leveled off considerably. Do you remember that when Trump won, there was speculation that gold from Fort Knox could be swapped to buy Bitcoin in what they call “budget-neutral ways” for the strategic reserve? Today, that’s not even on the table.

I was not reading the news, the news that I read most had only been about how many countries can later have bitcoin in their reserves. I only see bitcoin as an alternative and a good alternative, not a replacement. Before fiat was created, gold has been money, it is the metal that people and countries mostly focus on to be money of store of value. It is even what United States used to deceive countries to think dollar is the money they can fall back until dollar was no more backed by gold. Banks can not be very stupid to replace their gold with bitcoin, but they can later add bitcoin to their reserves.

[Exitoral]

Firstly, I don't think Ray Dalio believes what he says if he actually holds bitcoin as you stated. Maybe downgrading bitcoin is getting him paid. Who knows? 🤔

Transactions being transparent is actually strength rather than weakness. That's to say that banks who don't want that have a  truckload of dirty secrets.

I do not agree with what he said about bitcoin moving with tech stocks. That's vague and holds no credibility.

Bitcoin has a fixed supply. Gold doesn't. Which makes bitcoin more rare than gold. But because gold has been in existence at the beginning of time, bitcoin can't just replace it overnight.  And gold still very much holds concrete value.

For me he is simply not being honest. He really doesn't believe what he says. For me, I leave people like him alone. Cause all they really do is to pick fights and don't engage. Letting others engage in the fight and they sit and observe after causing the fight.

And mind you, this is important. Bitcoin is a long term investment. If you have gold, do you just sell anyhow. So have a gold mindset and buy bitcoin with the intention holding for long. Apply necessary knowledge where needed.

Dalio said something that banks are not buying bitcoin but the government are. What if the banks are buying bitcoin but not really in the name of the banks. Think about it.