NAIROBI (CoinChapter.com)— As Wall Street’s influence over Bitcoin (BTC) grows, questions arise about its impact on the cryptocurrency’s decentralized foundation. From BTC ETFs to BlackRock’s controversial statements, the tension between traditional finance and Bitcoin’s core principles has never been clearer.
BlackRock’s 21 Million Supply Cap Disclaimer Raises Eyebrows
On Dec. 17, BlackRock released a Bitcoin explainer video, emphasizing the cryptocurrency’s fixed supply of 21 million as a key factor in its value proposition. The video described the cap as a mechanism to maintain purchasing power and curb inflationary risks. However, a disclaimer in the video stated, “There is no guarantee that BTC’s 21 million supply cap will not be changed.”
Michael Saylor, MicroStrategy’s chairman, reignited the debate by reposting the video. Joel Valenzuela, Dashpay’s director of marketing, argued that changes to BTC’s supply cap could be framed as “always part of the plan,” calling it a sign of manipulation.
Ethereum developer Antiprosynthesis suggested BlackRock may understand Bitcoin better than many of its proponents.
Despite theoretical possibilities, this disclaimer has fueled fears that institutional players may attempt to reshape Bitcoin’s rules in their favor.
Are Bitcoin ETFs a Boon or a Threat?
Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have simplified access to the cryptocurrency for mainstream investors. BlackRock and other Wall Street giants have been key players in this shift. The introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs in 2024 has unlocked institutional demand, attracting trillions in potential capital.
However, Bitcoin ETFs raise centralization concerns. Locked Bitcoin in ETF custody may reduce its availability for decentralized applications, limiting its utility in scaling solutions like the Lightning Network. Additionally, traditional financial practices such as rehypothecation—reusing collateral across multiple transactions—could introduce systemic risks to Bitcoin’s ecosystem.
Miners vs. Wall Street: Who Holds the Power?
Bitcoin’s economic model hinges on miners earning block rewards and transaction fees. With rewards halving roughly every four years, concerns over miner sustainability have surfaced. Some suggest increasing BTC’s supply to address this issue, but history shows that such changes are nearly impossible to enforce.
History shows that miners alone cannot enforce such changes. During the Blocksize War of 2016–2017, node operators and developers rejected miners’ attempts to increase Bitcoin’s block size. Layer-2 solutions were developed instead, maintaining BTC’s decentralized ethos.
Wall Street’s growing role has brought stability and broader adoption to Bitcoin. However, it also introduces risks of centralization and financialization. The future of BTC depends on whether its community can safeguard its decentralized principles while embracing institutional interest.
