Satoshi: The Mystery and What Banks Think

Okay, let's unpack this "revolution" narrative around Bitcoin. Seventeen years in, and the headlines are practically back-patting Wall Street for embracing the tech that was supposed to dismantle it. JPMorgan taking Bitcoin as collateral? BlackRock launching ETFs? Sounds less like a revolution and more like a hostile takeover.

The Irony Is Thicker Than a Whale's Wallet

The core argument for Bitcoin always hinged on decentralization and freedom from traditional finance. Satoshi’s whitepaper wasn't just a tech spec; it was a middle finger to the existing system. The Genesis block even had that lovely little jab about bank bailouts baked right in. Now? The very institutions Bitcoin aimed to disrupt are wrapping it up in regulated funds, absorbing it into portfolios, and charging fees for the privilege. The very definition of co-option, really.

Gandhi’s quote, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win,” gets thrown around a lot. But is "winning" being swallowed whole by the enemy? Mokyr, Aghion, and Howitt won a Nobel Prize for their work on “creative destruction". It's about dismantling what no longer works. But in Bitcoin's case, Wall Street didn't dismantle anything. They just added another layer of fees and complexity to something that was supposed to be simple.

It's like building a decentralized, open-source car... and then selling it exclusively through dealerships with mandatory service packages. Sure, the technology is still there, but the spirit? Debatable.

The Culture War is the Real Battle

The piece mentions Bitcoin-native builders and communities “shaping that culture from the ground up.” And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. If the goal is truly self-custody and user sovereignty, why are so many people still happy to let BlackRock hold their keys? Is it convenience? Ignorance? Or a fundamental lack of trust in their own ability to manage their digital assets?

Catalini from MIT argues that the future of money depends on shared infrastructure, not walled gardens. But the rise of centralized exchanges and custodial services suggests that most users prefer the walled garden, even if it means sacrificing some degree of freedom. The conferences in Prague and Lugano are all well and good, but they're preaching to the choir. What about the millions of retail investors who are buying Bitcoin ETFs through their brokerage accounts? Are they even aware of the philosophical underpinnings of the technology?

The article correctly states that the Bitcoin movement has “conquered the balance sheets of global institutions, but not yet the habits of individuals.” (A succinct way to put it.) Until ordinary people actually use Bitcoin for everyday transactions, until they feel comfortable holding their own keys, the revolution remains incomplete. And frankly, the trend is moving in the opposite direction.

So, What's the Real Story?

Look, I'm not saying Bitcoin is a failure. The technology is groundbreaking, and the potential is still there. But the narrative of a decentralized revolution has been thoroughly compromised. The institutions Bitcoin was supposed to replace are now its biggest boosters, and the average user seems perfectly content to let them call the shots. The numbers don’t lie: Bitcoin's price is up, institutional adoption is soaring, and self-custody rates are… well, that data is harder to come by, isn’t it? That’s because no one is tracking the number of people who actually hold their own keys. They're too busy watching the price go up.

At this point, Bitcoin is less a revolutionary technology and more a speculative asset class, neatly packaged and sold to the masses by the very institutions it was designed to disrupt. Jamie Dimon's "yes" wasn't an endorsement; it was a eulogy.