How governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin: - allow price exposure in surveilled wrappers, - throttle sovereign self-custody at scale, - and pin price discovery to venues they can supervise. Let's look at the definitive signal list of State, corporate, and market-structure tells that add up to containment (not prohibition, not capitulation). There will be signs (and there are). A) Law, Regulation, and Supervision 1) KYC/AML hardening (Travel Rule everywhere). Mandates to identify senders/recipients across VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Provider); private transfers face added friction or are discouraged. To simplify this if you don't know what the Travel Rule is, here is how it plays out: Exchange -> exchange (VASP -> VASP): Example: Kraken -> Coinbase. Coinbase is the receiving company. Kraken must transmit originator/beneficiary details (name, account/wallet identifiers, etc.), typically in the IVMS-101 format. Exchange -> self-hosted wallet: There's no receiving company (no VASP on the other side), so no counter-party to send data to. In the EU, the sending VASP must still collect info, and for transfers over €1,000 it must verify ownership of that self-hosted address (e.g., message signing). Self-hosted wallet -> exchange: The exchange you deposit to is the receiving company. It must obtain required info before/when crediting the funds and may ask you to prove you control the sending address. 2) "Mixer" criminalization/designation. Sanctions and special-measure rules against mixing/tumbling tools and related infrastructure; chilling effect on privacy tooling. 3) Licensing regimes that raise fixed costs. BitLicense-style authorizations; EU MiCA CASP licensing; UK/FCA registration - each converts compliance into a barrier to entry and increases gatekeeper leverage. 4) Broker-style tax reporting. Expansion of standardized gain/loss reporting (e.g., 1099-type forms), pushing exposure into surveilled intermediaries and making day-to-day spend onerous. 5) No de-minimis relief for payments. Everyday Bitcoin spending remains a taxable disposal (no small-purchase exemption), suppressing medium-of-exchange usage. 6) High prudential capital charges for banks. Unbacked Bitcoin exposures given punitive risk weights under bank rules, discouraging balance-sheet adoption and reserve use. 7) Sanctions reach extended to addresses/tools. OFAC-style designations of specific wallets/services; exchanges obliged to screen and freeze - normalizes address-level policing. 8) Advertising/marketing restrictions. Tightened rules on retail promotion; approvals required; compliant phrasing only - slows "organic" adoption. 9) Court acceptance of chain-surveillance evidence. Judicial normalization of on-chain heuristics (taint analysis) increases enforcement confidence and deters privacy use. B) Market-Structure & Pricing Control 10) Spot ETFs approved; self-custody not scaled. Mass exposure routed into custodial funds with APs/market-makers under surveillance; retail "ownership" = brokerage claims, not keys. 11) Cash-settled futures hegemony (regulated venues). Institutional hedging and basis trades centered on supervised derivatives (e.g., CME), letting paper supply influence marginal price. 12) Custody concentration. A small set of brand-name custodians and a narrow AP set - choke points where policy can act without touching every holder. 13) Index-committee discretion against Bitcoin proxies. Flagship equity indices can exclude corporates that function as Bitcoin trackers (protect index optics; avoid importing crypto beta). - S&P declined MSTR entry, even though the company meets the requirements. NASDAQ/QQQ inclusion is rules-based which allowed MSTR in (for now). My best guess is that the rules change and MSTR gets kicked out eventually, but this is just speculation. 14) Prime brokerage / funding dependence. Leverage and borrow routed through supervised lenders; stress events are resolved in ways that prioritize systemic stability over "code is law". 15) Stablecoin preference for transactional rails. Policymakers elevate fiat-pegged coins (with issuer KYC/redeem controls) as the "digital cash" path, crowding out Bitcoin as a payments rail. C) Platform, Standards, and Default Settings 16) App-store / OS policy throttles. Wallet and node apps constrained by ToS (background processes, payment rails, external links), keeping users inside monitored ecosystems. 17) Exchange surveillance integrations. Mandatory chain-analysis (TRM/Chainalysis/Elliptic) as a license condition; withdrawal heuristics trigger holds or questionnaires. 18) Bank/payment "de-risking". Episodic account closures, rolling KBA (knowledge-based auth) challenges, and heightened SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) filing - keeps fiat on/off-ramps scarce and cautious. 19) Standards -> law copy-paste. FATF guidance and regional templates propagate globally; once a control is codified in one bloc, others replicate the same wording. 20) Compliance by SDK/API. Travel-rule messaging, address-screening, and risk scoring embedded in vendor SDKs - containment becomes the default implementation. 21) Identity-bound wallets. Movement toward government-approved digital ID tying KYC attributes to wallets - programmable compliance at the wallet-permission layer. D) Tax, Accounting, and Corporate Policy Signals 22) Fair-value accounting = optical profits; policy still resists. New accounting lets Bitcoin marks hit earnings, but committees/boards still avoid Bitcoin balance-sheet strategies (volatility + optics + procurement risk). 23) Treasury/board guidelines against macro-speculation. Corporate policies codify "no non-operating macro bets", pushing Bitcoin exposure -if any - into ETF shares, not keys. 24) Insurance & audit gating. D&O/cyber insurance, auditors, and lenders attach covenants or exclusions when Bitcoin exposure is outside well-worn wrappers. E) CBDC/Identity Build-Out (the strategic substitute) 25) CBDC pilots tied to digital ID and programmable controls. The preferred digitization path is controllable money with ledger-level policy hooks. 26) Merchant QR/soft-POS rails hardened around KYC'd accounts. New payment rails ship with identity and risk controls by default - Bitcoin remains "other". 27) Crisis playbooks tested. Emergency alerting, "essential commerce" allow-lists, and granular merchant categories - primitives for programmable payments at scale. F) Soft Power: Narrative & Optics 28) Environmental and consumer-risk frames. Sustained messaging that miners "waste energy" or that self-custody is "unsafe for consumers" - used to justify new controls. 29) "Innovation, responsibly" rhetoric. Politically safe posture: bless ETFs/enterprise chain-analytics while sidelining the monetary-sovereignty use case. 30) Hero projects elsewhere. Official enthusiasm channeled to AI, quantum, chips - areas with easier control knobs - signaling where capital and regulatory patience will go. G) "Absence" Signals (what you never see) 31) No legal carve-outs for small Bitcoin payments. A lasting omission that tells you payments isn't the intended role. 32) No HQLA-style treatment for Bitcoin. Banks are not allowed to count Bitcoin toward high-quality liquid assets. 33) No sovereign reserve disclosures (outside of stolen Bitcoin). If a major central bank/sovereign wealth fund wanted Bitcoin reserve signaling, you’d see it; you don't. 34) No mass-market self-custody education from public institutions. Education focuses on fraud avoidance and ETF literacy, not key management. H) Second-Order “Pen” Effects 35) ETF-first adoption curve. Households "own Bitcoin" via retirement accounts/brokerage ETFs - behaviorally entrenches custodial dependence. 36) Price discovery anchored where toggles exist. During stress, derivatives and ETF flows dominate; spot self-custody has less marginal impact. 37) Talent and vendor gravity. Startups build to compliance SDKs and custodial APIs; few build UX-clean self-custody for the masses - market follows the money. 38) Jurisdiction shopping ends at the fiat door. Even if an exchange is permissive, fiat banking sits under Basel/FATF; rails re-impose containment at the edge. Now, let's look at the Falsifiers (Bitcoin escape conditions) that would make this entire post incorrect: 1) G-7/major SWF (Sovereign Wealth Fund) discloses even 1–2% Bitcoin reserves/collateral (not stolen, but bought). In other words, big governments start purchasing Bitcoin. 2) De-minimis tax relief for Bitcoin payments in multiple big economies. 3) Banks get permissive risk weights or HQLA-like treatment for Bitcoin. 4) Non-custodial wallets become ID-neutral by default in major app stores/payment ecosystems. View quoted note →

Replies (6)

There can be no coexistence between an overly permissive and a free system. The permissive system can onlyvsurvive by suppressing or killing the free system. If killing (for now) is not an option there are to strategies at work that are quite obvious to the long term observer 1. Embrace but divertband dikute the original intention (mainly Bitcoin since 2014) 2. Suppress and attack without publicity (mainly Monero since 2018)
The only chance for cryptocurrencies to keep its meaning (and valuation) is reaching escape velocity through medium of exchange use. But most people are just to dumbed down or frightened and self-censoring aka compliant to recognise that they are frogs that get boiled. They will wake up/die only when it is already too late. So the question for any real Bitcoiners/Monero user is how to make your life a living example of the medium of exchange use. Fuck fiat NGU mindfuck. Where we are going those valuations are meaningless anyways. Spend and receive wherever you can. Demand to pay in Bitcoin/Monero wherever you go. Rent out stuff only for Bitcoin/Monero. Use every (!) point of sale interaction you have as a freedom, privacy l, digital cash sales pitch and move where people are receptive. This is mission critical. Fuck your HODL mindset. Fuck the whole digital gold narrative. It's what THEY planted in our community leading up to the BTC/BCH split. Your hold will be worthless if you can not spend it freely. Get rid of your maxi attitude, which largely feeds into the superiority trap while ignoring other worthwhile projects that can really help like Monero (and also Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Zcash) that have a medium of exchange culture. If you think Bitcoin maxis will rock this alone you are mistaken.
I am with you mate, I am not a digital gold enthusiast 😂 I'll always find a way to win regardless. I understand psychology well, so I've made peace with whatever the attack vector. Focusing on anti-fragility > all ideologies.
From time to time, I listen to Bitcoin podcasts and read the comments because it allows me to measure the temperature. Governments have had this process automated for a very long time. They use it to gage public opinion, so they know when it's go time and when to step back. This is how Trump (and other politicians of course) got the talking points for his political campaign (including the Bitcoin talking points). I had a listen to this podcast really quick, read a bunch of twitter opinions, etc, and I've never been been more sure that Bitcoiners are sleep-walking off a cliff. It's funny to see that Danny interviews people who have no clue what is going on, while he himself has a relatively good understanding. More context: View quoted note →
The concept that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption is very misunderstood in Bitcoin. This concept is called "The Perimeter Capture Rule". It means that you have to watch the perimeter: - cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), - app stores, - payments (exchanges, banks), - policy. Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global). If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: "Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?" If yes, price the center like a tenant. Many Bitcoiners often say: "We have the best tech, it's permissionless" and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant. However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base? And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no. Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I'm not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I'm talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network). View quoted note →
Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago. A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own. The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold. Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability. This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin. I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes. For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE. If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking": - The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account. - This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario). Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight. Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario. If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it. For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon. More context on the post-ETF era: View quoted note → More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption: View quoted note → More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin: View quoted note → More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand: View quoted note →