Bitcoin ETF is an idea from centralized system

[Smartprofit]

I do not mind ETFs as long as they do not affect Bitcoin in any way.  They theoretically do not.  I only wish more people would NOT adopt ETFs but rather invest in Bitcoin the 'traditional' way.

People who purchase ETFs do not want to find out how to properly hold Bitcoin, how to use it et cetera.  ETFs are the right choice for them.  Why force them to have Bitcoin when they only really want to speculate.

On the other hand, if there weren't spot ETFs, people would come to our Bitcointalk forum and ask us about the best way to buy and store Bitcoin. And we would answer their questions. 🙋

Instead, people buy surrogate Bitcoins. They're convinced they own real Bitcoins... And how can we be sure there aren't more of these surrogate Bitcoins created than the real thing? No. We're not sure...

The idea that spot ETFs, government regulations, or Michael Saylor's actions don't affect Bitcoin is refuted by the current price of Bitcoin. It's very low, especially considering what Bitcoin was worth five years ago ($69,000). And considering the dollar's inflation over that time...

Centralized storage alone is already causing significant damage to the Bitcoin network.

One thing about ETF is that it has recorded large net outflows of capital and as well a massive influx of capital because it was created for large pockets and institutional holders.

To be frank also, ETFs don't follow nor sway according to the original  core principles of privacy and self soverignty that Bitcoin was actually created with the intention of fulfilling.

Still, ETF investors are also Bitcoin investors no matter how you see it, even though I agree how centralization has become a basic principle for it and both Bitcoin kind of investors have some effect on the price of Bitcoin in the market.

If an investor buys a spot ETF and simultaneously shorts BTC futures, can such an investor be considered a Bitcoin maximalist?😉

When Black Rock issues options (derivatives that allow betting on the rise or fall of the spot ETF shares themselves), can the purchase of these options be considered the same as the purchase of Bitcoin by our forum members?🙋

In essence, institutional players are using Bitcoin to create a pyramid of virtual fiat liabilities. Bitcoin itself isn't a risky asset. However, its close relationship with the modern financial system makes it such an asset. This is precisely why, in my opinion, its price is currently falling instead of rising. 🤷

[Zlantann]

☠️These big marketers and politicians are manipulating because they know about the power of Bitcoin.
There have been cases in history where keeping gold at home was considered a crime (I saw this in an online video).
Market manipulation, spreading negative 🚨 news in the market, and various stocks and manipulations
centered around BTCitcoin—all of these are excellent strategies to grab all the Bitcoin.

These politicians and institutional investors are concerned about making money from Bitcoin. We saw what happened in the last US election when politicians were campaigning using Bitcoin. Most of them promised to make pro-Bitcoin policies if they are elected. They were using Bitcoin for a campaign because they wanted to get donations from the crypto community and also attract young voters. With the increase in Bitcoin awareness and the use by big businesses, they want to be part of it so that they can make a profit through offering different services like ETFs.

Manipulationg Bitcoin market is not easy since it is decentralised. FUDs might not have a long-term effect on the Bitcoin market because the market will always adjust.

[JeffBrad12]

If an investor buys a spot ETF and simultaneously shorts BTC futures, can such an investor be considered a Bitcoin maximalist?😉

When Black Rock issues options (derivatives that allow betting on the rise or fall of the spot ETF shares themselves), can the purchase of these options be considered the same as the purchase of Bitcoin by our forum members?🙋

In essence, institutional players are using Bitcoin to create a pyramid of virtual fiat liabilities. Bitcoin itself isn't a risky asset. However, its close relationship with the modern financial system makes it such an asset. This is precisely why, in my opinion, its price is currently falling instead of rising. 🤷

Even without existence of ETF, derivative already exist isn't it? People are using exchanges for derivative trade with highly leveraged trade. It isn't so different when BlackRock decide to issue options, it's nothing more than capital used to short bitcoin went from an exchange to another derivative market, but anyway BlackRock don't have such product and only focus on long exposure.

[bubilas]

Bitcoin ETF is a fund that invests in Bitcoin for investors, where investors also own shares and not actual Bitcoin. I think the firms behind the idea of Bitcoin ETFs were influenced by the concept of centralization. When Bitcoin is invested in an ETF, it is assumed that investors don't have a key and that the investment is being managed by the ETF custodian.

ETFs may attract more investors to invest in Bitcoin, but they don't encourage Bitcoin privacy for investors and don't give investors full control of their Bitcoin. These two types of investors have the same goal: to invest in Bitcoin, but their ideas are different.

I believe ETFs violate one of the concepts embedded in Bitcoin's creation. Centralization is evil, allowing a small group to control what should essentially be decentralized. The same applies, for example, to stablecoins or large centralized exchanges. But it's worth noting that BTC ETFs also have a positive function. Firstly, they allow us to understand the outflows and inflows of large players into crypto. Secondly, they facilitate adoption, allowing large players to participate in the crypto world safely and securely..[/list]

[EarnOnVictor]

Hahaha...that was the idea from the onset, and everyone was happy that it was coming, even as it helped Bitcoin to significantly rose at that time; making the bull season faster than expected in 2022/203.

The idea of the ETF has been for decades, so it's naturally reasonable to know that it's from the traditional way, which makes Bitcoin more indirectly centralised with the way some people use it.

[snowpega]

People aren't used to take full responsability ober their assets. This is how they found shelter in ETFs and exchange platforms to help manage their investments. We have to deal with this fact because it is impossible that people can realize the importance of privacy overnight. When people thought about bitcoin to save them from modern slavery made by financial institutions, few wise people knew that bitcoin is actually in need to coexist with traditional market variables because it will help the adoption widespread. Otherwise, we wouldn't witness the popularity of bitcoin knowledge as we see it today.

People understand the importance of privacy because they still own BTC, and they don't have to fear any scams that they know they are too vulnerable to. Because these traditional people are old people and they are easy targets for scammers and hackers, and they know that when they use the services of these asset managers, they will get insurance and safety, which they don't have to worry about.

They also get to hide their savings, which only they and the platform know, because bro on the BTC blockchain, everything is visible. If they deposit or withdraw, they will become a target, and hackers could also find their emails and other information easily. They could even launch wrench attacks on them.

[Hamza2424]

ETFs may attract more investors to invest in Bitcoin, but they don't encourage Bitcoin privacy for investors and don't give investors full control of their Bitcoin. These two types of investors have the same goal: to invest in Bitcoin, but their ideas are different.

It is obvious bro, ETFs are institutional class. In short, there is a middleman. In reality BTC should not have any middlemen to make the buying, selling, or holding your coins. In reality, you go to an exchange, give your money, and take BTC. That BTC sits in your wallet and the key is owned by you.

If you own the key, you own the funds.

So if you lose the keys, you will lose the funds to the person who has your key. Therefore always keep the key safe and away from places where it could get damaged and you won't be able to read anything from it.

Anyway, it is obvious that ETFs are centralized, and ETF investors are not going to enjoy the real sovereignty of BTC. And I think they don't want to enjoy that, that's their choice of investing.

[X-ray]

ETFs may attract more investors to invest in Bitcoin, but they don't encourage Bitcoin privacy for investors and don't give investors full control of their Bitcoin. These two types of investors have the same goal: to invest in Bitcoin, but their ideas are different.

It is obvious bro, ETFs are institutional class. In short, there is a middleman. In reality BTC should not have any middlemen to make the buying, selling, or holding your coins. In reality, you go to an exchange, give your money, and take BTC. That BTC sits in your wallet and the key is owned by you.

If you own the key, you own the funds.

So if you lose the keys, you will lose the funds to the person who has your key. Therefore always keep the key safe and away from places where it could get damaged and you won't be able to read anything from it.

Anyway, it is obvious that ETFs are centralized, and ETF investors are not going to enjoy the real sovereignty of BTC. And I think they don't want to enjoy that, that's their choice of investing.

It's not as simple as self custody good, custodial bad and no sovereignty.

ETF exist to bridge the traditional capital to have exposure to crypto price, ETF basically enabled fiduciaries to invest in Bitcoin, the existence of ETF obviously has use.

Not everything non-self custodial is bad, sometime it's needed for some party that can't own direct bitcoin with self custody due to regulation compliances.

In that case, you won't get privacy either way and the only way to go is through ETF.

[Darker45]

Just a single point. More than being "influenced by the concept of centralization", these firms are actually strong proponents of centralization. To simply consider them "influenced" is toning down their vital roles. In reality, they are warriors for centralization. Not only are they doing what they're doing, they went the extra mile and managed to create a centralized system or design out of what's intended to be decentralized.

In a way, they're not only offering an alternative approach to what's otherwise decentralized, they're destroying it somehow.