US Banks Will Soon Offer Bitcoin Custody: Is This The End of Bitcoin as a Tool for Self-Sovereignty?

I've been in the Bitcoin world since late 2016. I've been writing daily about Bitcoin since mid-2017. So that's over seven and a half years that I've been following the evolution of the Bitcoin ecosystem daily.

I'm not saying this to brag about anything but simply to share an observation I can make about a change in attitude and behavior in the Bitcoin world. A change that tends to worry me, as you may already have gathered if you read me regularly.

When I arrived in the world of Bitcoin, everyone was talking about a liberating revolution for the people. I was won over by this aspect of Bitcoin and, in particular, by trying to understand how a technological and monetary revolution like Bitcoin could have such a positive impact on humanity.

Everyone was saying that it was essential to take possession of your Bitcoin's private keys. The meme “Not Your Keys, Not Your Bitcoin” still made sense.

In 2024, it seems to me that these values no longer exist. Looking back, it seems to me that the inflection point took place, unbeknownst to us at the time, in August 2020 with the arrival of Michael J. Saylor and MicroStrategy in the Bitcoin universe.

Pseudo-Bitcoiners have been in power ever since, constantly selling Bitcoin as a financial product, trying to tell you that this is the only way Bitcoin can reach the general public. To hear them tell it, Bitcoin can never become mainstream unless it's integrated into the current system as a simple SoV. This is a lie spread by people who are only interested in the price of Bitcoin in weak money.

There's no doubt that the price of Bitcoin in weak money will rise faster with the excessive financialization promoted by BlackRock and Michael J. Saylor. But is this the end game for Bitcoin?

Is the goal of Bitcoin to always be denominated in weak money and to be over-financialized?

Is the goal of the Bitcoin revolution to see the same middlemen of the current system that we were supposed to fight to enter the game: bankers, financial institutions, payment systems, central bankers, and governments?

Of course NOT.

Michael J. Saylor did a good job of evangelizing about Bitcoin initially, but I have the feeling that he's now showing his true face and his complicity with the financial giants who want to take over the Bitcoin world.

Nobody talks about Bitcoin as a MoE anymore. Everyone is content to constantly see charts on the price of Bitcoin in weak money and haphazard forecasts that will only prevent the general public from seeing Bitcoin as anything other than a simple SoV integrated into the current system.

This is a tragedy because the potential of the Bitcoin revolution is far greater than that. We are witnessing a great hijacking of the Bitcoin revolution before our very eyes, and nobody is reacting. The few voices that do react are sidelined and thrown back on the ropes with stupid memes like: “Have fun staying poor.”

Dramatic that it's not possible to discuss real advances for the future of the Bitcoin revolution, which is more endangered than ever.

The latest critical point for me is to see Michael J. Saylor share with his large base of followers that the forthcoming entry of American banks into Bitcoin custody is a good thing.

A good thing for whom?

Certainly not for the Bitcoin revolution. Rather, it's for the powerful in the current system, who will be able to strengthen their grip on the Bitcoin world a little more.

It could even be the prelude to something much worse: a future ban on the self-custody of Bitcoin.

Governments would then force citizens to own BTC via trusted third parties defined by them. Given the transparency of the Bitcoin network, the authorities would soon create two classes of BTC units: those held directly and which would be illegal and those held by third parties such as BNY Mellon and other American banks.

Do you think this is impossible? I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the next logical step will be once all these players in the current system have resumed their position as middlemen within the Bitcoin system.

Beware, and don't be blinded by weak money profits.

What's most fascinating is that a few days after I started writing this article, we saw this still tweeted by Michael J. Saylor, the great accomplice in hijacking the deeper meaning of the Bitcoin revolution:

Michael J. Saylor is pleased to see that members of Congress are in favor of American banks being able to custody Bitcoin for their customers. Of course, Michael J. Saylor puts this forward as a Bullish argument for Bitcoin. But as you may have gathered, it's Bullish only for the weak money price of Bitcoin, certainly not for the future of the Bitcoin revolution.

We've been fighting for years to separate money from the state, and now the bankers are going to resume their role as intermediaries, with the blessing of the US government, which sees this as a great opportunity to nip the Bitcoin revolution in the bud.

Bitcoin as SoV satisfies them as long as they have control over it. What worried them was the emergence of an alternative global monetary system. With what's happening right now, they see this risk as ever more remote. Michael J. Saylor should be the first to denounce this, but you can see where he stands. And it's not on the side of the Bitcoin revolution as a liberating movement for the people.