Why Is Wall Street Backing Bitcoin?

[Numan467]

Past few months has seen several big financial institutions such as BlackRock, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs, Charles Schwab, and others, supporting suggested bill, the CLARITY Act, that tries to bring more clarity to rule landscape of digital assets in U.S. Key goal of the bill is to show legal scope for digital assets and which governing bodies would have legal power over various parts of the digital asset industry.

Many big financial institutions had been doubtful of crypto or were sitting on sidelines for years, waiting for the legal situation to change. Now, some of the financial world largest names are publicly weighing in on laws that could give industry clear rules.

My View On This

It seems to me that it is more like big institutions want certainty. Creating products or services or investing large amounts of money is hard when the rule landscape is uncertain. Clear rules help the involvement of institutions with lower legal risk and greater confidence.

Meanwhile, it has presented an interesting question to Bitcoin fans. Bitcoin was originally designed as option to the traditional financial sector, but some of the biggest pushes for crypto regulation are from regular financial institutions. In some respects industry is shifting from small market to the mainstream of the financial system.

What do you think?

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/07/28/blackrock-fidelity-other-wall-street-giants-back-the-clarity-act

[Doan9269]

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

Possible they want some clear rules because they already know this fact that bitcoin is the centralized and they can't afford to adjust or influence any changes to its network, everything you see them gather to do is to only should and protect themselves and not on the interest of the entire bitcoin holders.

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

Only centralized entity that claim to fall under bitcoin adoption will be affected by any of their regulations in this regard, if someone like me and you are wise enough, we will definitely embrace decentralization and try to have our assets on a non-cost with their wallet than using its centralized platform that regulation may be effective upon.

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

Bitcoin is for everyone and this is why both individual, coperate bodies or organizations and government as a whole are all open to adopt Bitcoin and apply it use for their own benefits.

[dzungmobile]

Possible they want some clear rules because they already know this fact that bitcoin is the centralized and they can't afford to adjust or influence any changes to its network, everything you see them gather to do is to only should and protect themselves and not on the interest of the entire bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin is decentralized, isn't it?
Wall Street did not support Bitcoin years ago.
They are like governments and central banks which ignored Bitcoin when the project was launched by Satoshi Nakamoto but with time they witnessed the strong growth of Bitcoin, saw potential from this blockchain that has actually shaped a new era for human civilization, especially for accounting industry. Then their stance on Bitcoin and this industry in general changed, but supporting or backing Bitcoin is not like what they actually want to do.

They want to milk money from this industry and they know that they can not achieve it without Bitcoin.

Bitcoin - An accounting revolution.

[X-ray]

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

There is a lot of money to make, from ETF to custody fee. They're not here because they necessarily support the vision, they're in because the potential profit. Clarity act helps eliminate the legal limbo so they could work better and efficiently unlike before.

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

Regulation toward Bitcoin, before Clarity act or after Clarity act will be more or less the same.

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

It could boost the adoption, but it increases centralization of holder because institutional custody. But the bitcoin's blockchain is still as decentralized as ever.

[Oshosondy]

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

Clear rules is part of it, but adoption is also part of it. They do not want to put their money on something that is not guaranteed of bringing return, but as some institutions like BlackRock enter the market, it makes them believe in it.

The market will both be shared by the crypto and traditional financial institutions. You can see ETF for spot bitcoin having momentum already in the United States. Also many crypto part of it are even centralized just like the exchanges as examples.

No matter what will be the regulations, crypto has its own market that people will continue to use.

[Die_empty]

What do you think?

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

The centralized crypto industry is an emerging market. Without control, it would be messed up by scammers, weak investors and the government. As the market matures, there will be new threats or loopholes that need to be addressed. So we might keep seeing new and amended laws periodically. Every investor would want some protection and that is why these institutional investors are supporting the Clarity Act. BlackRock (IBIT) holds over $47 billion in market value; Fidelity (FBTC): $10.96 billion; and Grayscale (GBTC & BTC), $12 billion in market value. You don't expect businesses with such investments not to support a bill that seeks to make policies clearer.

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

AFAIK, the proposed bill doesn't force anybody to use only centralized platforms for Bitcoin transactions. People will still have the option of using middlemen or adopting self-custody.

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

It hinders the decentralization goal of Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency was designed to be used without any intermediary or middleman.

[YellowSwap]

They will surely support the Clarity bills, what are you talking about? Bitcoin alone is not even enough, the likes of BlackRock and Fidelity are here to make massive gains too.

Not supporting the bill means they don't want to make those money, I will be shocked if they don't want, this bill needs to be accepted and put to motion before Trump leaves the office or else it will never happen again.

I'm sure that democrat will do all they can to cripple some part of this crypto space mainly on the senate house and politicians in the US, the only problem I have with this is fading of Bitcoin decentralisation.

[purple_sparkles]

They will surely support the Clarity bills, what are you talking about? Bitcoin alone is not even enough, the likes of BlackRock and Fidelity are here to make massive gains too.

Not supporting the bill means they don't want to make those money, I will be shocked if they don't want, this bill needs to be accepted and put to motion before Trump leaves the office or else it will never happen again.

I'm sure that democrat will do all they can to cripple some part of this crypto space mainly on the senate house and politicians in the US, the only problem I have with this is fading of Bitcoin decentralisation.

In my opinion, if the Democrats also see an advantage in passing this or a similar bill, it could realistically gain support. The wars that the USA is involved in, both directly and indirectly, require a strong economy to sustain them. At the same time, many other investment assets could lose value because of these same circumstances, which may make bitcoin appear more attractive as an alternative.

[bitLeap]

When there is an opportunity to generate greater profits, Wall Street will be there to get a piece of the action. They are not particularly concerned with the future adoption or long term viability of digital currencies. They may not even care about Bitcoin itself, for them the question is simply whether Bitcoin and crypto can become a profitable asset class. To achieve this goal, they need to support the rapid passage of the Clarity Act. Their support does not come for free, so do not be fooled into thinking they genuinely care about decentralization.

[Renampun]

Wall Street is now on the crypto trend, do you believe that its support is because it now understands long term possibility for Bitcoin or just because it wants some clear rules?

It's all about their own interests.. no one wants to invest their money in something without clear regulations.

These institutions simply want clear and firm regulations for the crypto assets they manage, so they don't backfire and harm them by managing something without a clear legal framework.

Will tougher regulations drive greater use for Bitcoin, or will they make industry dependent on traditional financial institutions?

To be sure, the regulations are more restrictive, but they provide certainty regarding what they are allowed to do and what they are prohibited from doing. Under this Clarity Act, you can still practice self-custody.. so, more or less, there's still an opportunity for individuals to retain control over their own assets.

Does entry of big companies into Bitcoin help or hinder end goal of the system?

What I see is that the entry of these big players will only increase the centralization of Bitcoin ownership since more big players can accumulate more Bitcoins.. but it will not disrupt the decentralization of the Bitcoin network.

[bitbollo]

A decentralized technology could be used by anyone. it could be see as something "neutral".
What it could looks really interesting is the recognizing of this technology at any level of our society. This is somewhat fascinating. The same human beings that are far thousands of miles could transact some data - and both can find a different use...the white collars would sell a profitable product, in some poor places people are using as "sound money". 

[OcTradism]

What I see is that the entry of these big players will only increase the centralization of Bitcoin ownership since more big players can accumulate more Bitcoins.. but it will not disrupt the decentralization of the Bitcoin network.

Bitcoin network belongs to Bitcoin miners and Bitcoin node operators, not investors. If I understand your post correctly, big players in this context are very likely investors so surely they are not be able to break the decentralization of Bitcoin network.

The decentralization of Bitcoin network comes from miners (their mining hashrate, hashrate distributions and locations) as well as Bitcoin node operations and distributions globally.

There are mining farms, nations that run Bitcoin mining farms like Bhutan but there is no big players doing anything to control Bitcoin network and do 51% attacks. In history of Bitcoin blockchain, and its mining history, there has been no reported 51% attacks against Bitcoin network.

Who will do attacks if it won't bring benefit, profit to them?
https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/

[Slow death]

My View On This

It seems to me that it is more like big institutions want certainty. Creating products or services or investing large amounts of money is hard when the rule landscape is uncertain. Clear rules help the involvement of institutions with lower legal risk and greater confidence.

They invest money in anything that can generate significant profit, regardless of whether it harms a country or city, and they hate losing money. Because of the risk of a Bitcoin ban, they were cautious, not buying but monitoring the market. When they saw it was a highly volatile market and that governments would eventually have to accept this new market, they started buying while discussing a solution with regulators that would benefit them. In the end, they just want high profits for as long as possible.

Larry Fink criticized Bitcoin in 2017, saying it was used for money laundering. Years passed, and the profits Bitcoin generated led BlackRock to also buy Bitcoin. But that doesn't mean he changed his opinion; he simply looked at the profits.

These were his words:

"You own Bitcoin because you're frightened of your physical security. You own it because you're frightened of your financial security."

source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-asset-fear-says-blackrock-141658438.html

I summarized their entire thought process. It's all about profits and security, ensuring they won't suffer losses if the government bans Bitcoin. They just want guarantees that governments will remain neutral: not passing laws allowing Bitcoin, but also not passing laws banning Bitcoin. They'll remain neutral: they can use it, but following rules X and Y.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Larry Fink criticized Bitcoin in 2017, saying it was used for money laundering. Years passed, and the profits Bitcoin generated led BlackRock to also buy Bitcoin. But that doesn't mean he changed his opinion; he simply looked at the profits.

I summarized their entire thought process. It's all about profits and security, ensuring they won't suffer losses if the government bans Bitcoin. They just want guarantees that governments will remain neutral: not passing laws allowing Bitcoin, but also not passing laws banning Bitcoin. They'll remain neutral: they can use it, but following rules X and Y.

With big institutions, they prioritize on keeping their capital as safest as possible, it's most important task for their capital management. They will need profit, but don't chase too high ROI like retail investors.

With this risk and profit management mindset, institutions like BlackRock never want to take risk if it can cause them big losses or put them into severe legal issues. It's reason they waited years since 2009 till around 2022 and 2023 to begin their engagement in this market. After Bitcoin Spot ETF approvals, we can see that Black Rock and other institutions aim at Ethereum, a biggest altcoin. It's how they maintain their discipline of risk and profit management as said above. Big institutions are not interested in meme tokens or shitcoins because they are very well aware of risk which is what they want to avoid as best as possible.

In all market cycles, Bitcoin lead the market, finished a bear market and made a new bull run first. Ethereum and top altcoins follow, it's how cryptocurrency market cycle works. Reasons are the same because Bitcoin and Ethereum are biggest, strongest, have highest trading volume and demand, so they have less risk compares to other altcoins.

Ethereum and Altcoins Will Continue to Lag Behind Bitcoin.

Institutional investors are returning more actively to the leading cryptocurrency.
Inflows into US spot bitcoin ETFs have offset two-thirds of recent outflows, while Ethereum ETFs have offset only one-third.

[Numan467]

They invest money in anything that can generate significant profit, regardless of whether it harms a country or city, and they hate losing money. Because of the risk of a Bitcoin ban, they were cautious, not buying but monitoring the market. When they saw it was a highly volatile market and that governments would eventually have to accept this new market, they started buying while discussing a solution with regulators that would benefit them. In the end, they just want high profits for as long as possible.

Larry Fink criticized Bitcoin in 2017, saying it was used for money laundering. Years passed, and the profits Bitcoin generated led BlackRock to also buy Bitcoin. But that doesn't mean he changed his opinion; he simply looked at the profits.

These were his words:

"You own Bitcoin because you're frightened of your physical security. You own it because you're frightened of your financial security."

source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-asset-fear-says-blackrock-141658438.html

I summarized their entire thought process. It's all about profits and security, ensuring they won't suffer losses if the government bans Bitcoin. They just want guarantees that governments will remain neutral: not passing laws allowing Bitcoin, but also not passing laws banning Bitcoin. They'll remain neutral: they can use it, but following rules X and Y.

I largely agree that profit was main reason for institutions to get into Bitcoin. I doubt they'd be asking for more clarity today if they did not think there was profit to be made.

However, I think there is difference between wanting profits and wanting legal safety. Firm can be positive on Bitcoin and still want clear rules before investing more large amounts of money. Most large institutions are subject to shareholders and cannot stand legal uncertainty like individual investors.

What is cool is that Bitcoin does not care about their intentions. Some individuals purchase Bitcoin due to its technology, some individuals purchase Bitcoin due to financial freedom, and institutions purchase Bitcoin due to business opportunity. Eventually, they all are part of same network, even if for very different reasons.

Don't know much about merit system but +1 from me.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Wall Street's push for the CLARITY Act is mostly about legal certainty. Big financial players cannot commit serious capital without clear rules on compliance and regulatory jurisdiction.

While heavy regulation will inevitably integrate Bitcoin deeper into traditional finance, it is also what drives widespread institutional adoption. If we ever want Bitcoin to become a mainstream asset class, this is a necessary evil.