Is It Right That Banks Now Accept Bitcoin?

[Viscore]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

[Z_MBFM]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

You can easily use Bitcoin and make Bitcoin transactions internationally, then why should it be like this in the case of banks where the government will not have any control or control, you will have complete control. If this happens, those countries that are corrupt can go bankrupt very quickly. Because when you have complete control of your money in the banking channel, you can make transactions as you wish, which will be a very good opportunity for money launderers. And there will be a fear of smuggling a huge amount of money out of the country. So I don't think that banks will ever give such an opportunity that transactions can be made as you wish without any authorization like Bitcoin. We can use Bitcoin to use the decentralized opportunity. But it is better to have banks as centralized.

[rodskee]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

even if banks are offering it now we still have a choice and that’s the important part here the fact that we now have the choices to choose from whether we want the banks or crypto but back then banks used to be the ones to only run the world

[OmegaStarScream]

If the banks are offering actual bitcoin that you can withdraw to your personal wallet, I don't see why not. Even if it's like ETFs for example where the client don't actually have access to the bitcoin then that's still fine... It's not something I would recommend obviously as it goes against what bitcoin stands for, but if there is demand for it, then so be it. Some people just prefer it this way and rather deal with banks and asset managers then an exchange.

[ZeroVinsonN]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

By banks accepting bitcoin are you saying that banks now provide and avenue for bitcoin owners to store their bitcoin with them rather than in the decentralised wallet system that has been in use since bitcoin became a thing, because if that's that case then it's not exactly a welcome development, or is it just that banks are now interested in bitcoin because they see the potential of gain from it not necessarily in the sense that they can control it but in the same sense that we as individuals are interested in bitcoin, countries are created bitcoin reserves because they understand it's value in the long run so it's not out of place for banks to want to do the same z you'd think that a financial institution will understand the financial gain that will come with having good access to bitcoin right?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin is all about self-custody and being your own bank, but we can't get there in one step, if we ever need to get there totally (some people rather trust a third party). In the current system, most capital is "locked" in some sense, and cannot be sold for bitcoin, due to various legislation. This is where treasury companies come at play, and act as "proxy" between bitcoin and the traditional financial system. These companies essentially speed up the process of fiat's collapse, as they try to inflate fiat as much as possible through loan creation, and shrink the market supply of bitcoin through OTC purchases.

More than $30 trillion cannot directly buy bitcoin, but it can buy MSTR, or Strategy's products, or the IBIT ETF. Hyperbitcoinization, one step at a time.

[Satofan44]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Bitcoin does not rely on traditional institutions and it allows people to control their money directly, this has not change and this will never change. Whether people want to use this feature or whether they are responsible enough to be able to use it safely is irrespective to what Bitcoin is, it does not influence it. Bitcoin provides a choice to freedom, it does not force you to use it this way.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

This is the natural evolution of a hard money and a new asset class. There is simply no way that Bitcoin can grow so big and not be avoided by them. Those that see it as a "step backwards" are idiots who do not understand what Bitcoin is, neither do they understand how economies work. Bitcoin is neutral. As such it will be adopted by people and entities that you don't like and used in ways that you don't like. You don't get to dictate anything. This is not a sign of a regression, it is a sign of Bitcoin working as intended.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

As an outsider you can't say for sure therefore this is worthless speculation. Many will adopt it purely to hunt profit, some will adopt it because they are convinced.

[Catenaccio]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

Banks have to accept Bitcoin when they see that many people are migrating from banks to Bitcoin blockchain. With Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin non custodial wallets, people can have their own banks and it's a very big risk against traditional banks.

Hence, to survive, traditional banks must change themselves and open their bank gates for Bitcoin users. They do it as one of changes for adapting well enough to Bitcoin era as Bitcoin will continue its thrive without banks while banks know that they only get more benefit by providing Bitcoin-related products for people.

Years since 2009 Bitcoin Genesis Block, there is Bitcoin snowball effects so that banks can not stay against Bitcoin forever.

[Rikafip]

It was bound to happen once bitcoin became popular, as when something grows big enough to affect the money system, banks want to be part of it.

Banks see both a threat and an opportunity and historically they adapted by finding ways to integrate what they can’t control. This shows that bitcoin is no longer just a small idea and instead it’s something to be taken seriously and we are just witnessing that.

You know how that saying goes, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win".  

[Agbamoni]

There are people who trust their bank on every transaction they want to make. If you as a bitcoiner try to tell them about bitcoin they wouldn't believe you. But since the advice is coming from their bank they believe they can trust their bank. However, what they fail to know is that, "not your keys, not your coin". Any organization, body or establishment serving as a third between you and your Bitcoin means centralization has occurred. Eventually your Bitcoin are not safe money. Honestly, the last people I will trust are bankers.

[Bluedrem]

I think banks will pay more attention to the Bitcoin holdings in their wallets or whatever they call them than to the transactions in Bitcoin. Everyone wants their assets to be protected from inflation as well as to increase in value over time, that is, to increase the amount of return. Bank authorities and those who work in banks are also aware of the success of Bitcoin and they also know how bright the future of Bitcoin is. They may not express this fact because they are only involved in banking, but they also want to have Bitcoin in their collection. In view of that, banks can start accepting Bitcoin, in which case they can deposit most of the Bitcoin as capital in their banks. Secondly, if you look at how much Bitcoin companies have increased their share prices just because of their involvement with Bitcoin, that is, people currently believe that all companies involved with Bitcoin will be able to provide something good to their partners in the future, so they want to be associated with Bitcoin companies. In that case, banks may also have a strategy so that users can have more trust in the bank since they are holding Bitcoin. My opinion may be wrong, but after a little analysis, I have been able to understand these things.

[Solosanz]

If banks now accept Bitcoin, that means they consider Bitcoin not a scam or Tulip 2.0.

It's a good thing that Bitcoin adoption will be larger and wider, since Bitcoin is decentralized, we can't forbid anyone including bank to accept Bitcoin. The peak of decentralization is when you allow everything, a competitor want to own your asset is also allowed.

[Oshio-man]

Banks are accepting bitcoin doesn't mean that bank is the middle man, bank or government are not the one controlling the price of bitcoin because you can have access to your bitcoin without bank approval, do you know many bankers and banks owners are into bitcoin investment, they will not come out in  public and tell people that they are into bitcoin investment because bitcoin is not something you will be coming out in public to tell people, mind you that is not all the banks of the world that is accepting bitcoin, there are some government that place a ban on bitcoin in their financial institutions.

[Asuspawer09]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

I mean a lot of people started to realize how great the Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency is, so a lot of people around the globe started switching from banks to cryptocurrency when it comes to investments, there are a lot of discussions about it, Banks already know about it and in my opinion they already know that it might be the start of the fall of banks, and they know that they can't beat cryptocurrency, that is why in my opinion they need to make a move and adopt on that, instead of fighting cryptocurrency which is a decentralized currency, like banning it, they know they cant win so they need to adopt. It's like what the saying says, if you can't beat them, join them.

Banks actually find a way to capitalize on it, that is why most of the bank wallets are on huge fees, or a huge price spread which actually almost like scamming people on the platform with a huge fees, especially if your just a beginner which most likely why you use that application, because most of the centralize crypto users are new or doesnt really know anything about it and they just want to find a way to invest conviniently on cryptocurrency that is why they are using their bank to invest on Bitcoin instead of actually using a decentralized wallet.

So banks accepting Bitcoin is just the way it is, but still would never use it at this point, probably, if they are comparable to an actual exchange where we have fair fees, I might trust it with a small percentage of my money just to have a spare account on my bank as well, but would still not make it my main wallet since its centralized.

[Z-tight]

Not your keys, not your coins. But i do not get to tell people what to do with their keys and their coins. If banks now offer BTC custody and trading and people decide to adopt their service, then it is up to them. People still store their coins in centralized exchanges, despite all the warnings not to, so do you think such people wouldn't use banks for the same reason.

The good point is that all of this does not affect BTC in itself. I have said this so many times, i don't mind saying it again, the network is censorship resistant and what people decide to do with their keys does not change what BTC is or what it represents.

[Su-asa]

It's my choice to chose whether to use the bank or to use just my Bitcoin wallet to hold my Bitcoin. Allowing the bank to hold my Bitcoin is same things as doing against what Bitcoin is designed for. It's same as using a centralize system to hold bitcoin instead of a decentralized system. I will prefer to hold my Bitcoin all to my self. Just like the saying Not Your Key Not Your Coin.

[EarnOnVictor]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Is it not good that banks are embracing the business around Bitcoin? That is what you should ask yourself. There is nothing bad here, and it's a win-win for Bitcoin. Bitcoin didn't get to this level by standing alone, and indirectly, the banks have always been involved.

Talking about the involvement, you painted it as if it's controlling to the point that it will now reduce/change the decentralisation characteristic of Bitcoin, which is not possible. Anyone can come to do business with/around Bitcoin, but that will never change the structure and mechanism of operation of Bitcoin itself.

[Mahiyammahi]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign; its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backwards, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralised control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

This actually goes both ways. In a way, banks accepting Bitcoin signify mainstream acceptance, enhanced security, and increased ease of use. Many ordinary people are now able to get involved in crypto through banks, which previously seemed risky. But on the other hand, it goes against the core philosophy of Bitcoin: “control your own money.” When banks come in, the middleman comes back, meaning the “decentralised” aspect is reduced. In reality, just as independent businesses grow, investors come in and lose some control; Bitcoin is also on a similar path. So whether it’s progress or takeover, it depends on whether you value freedom more or security more.

[Eclipse01]

It feels strange seeing banks suddenly open their doors to Bitcoin when the original message was “banking without banks.” Bitcoin was created to remove middlemen, to let people control their money directly without relying on traditional institutions. yet now, the same system that Bitcoin tried to replace is starting to embrace it.

Some say it’s a good sign, its mass adoption means more legitimacy and convenience, but others see it as a step backward, a slow takeover of something that was meant to be free from centralized control.

So is this progress, or just another way for banks to profit from what was supposed to challenge them?

I think CEx's are like crypto banks, I mean they even have lending services, so I guess it is nothing new

[Xlaas]

Banks aren’t embracing Bitcoin to be edgy, they’re chasing profits. It makes crypto more usable, but kills the “no middlemen” ideal.