Simple fact: Bakkt will custodian all bitcoins purchased at the end of each day (futures expiration).
The issue was never about whether the net difference between long and shorts (bitcoins purchased) is physically deliverable. That doesn't speak to whether all contracts are fully backed by BTC at all.
It's funny to me how we went from opposing trust, to trusting institutions to "back" contracts with BTC, and now we're even trusting every word a banker says. This is the evolution of Bitcoin users.
You are making a second point, but he said "btc are not held in trust." That is not true. They are held.
You left out the second part of the sentence, which clarified that futures exchanges don't need to issue contracts on a 1:1 basis to the underlying inventory. Nobody said an inventory doesn't exist, nor that Bakkt's contracts wouldn't be fully backed by equivalent value. I'm just not confident that in a "bank run" scenario that all contracts would be physically deliverable in BTC. I don't really care either. But it's an additional reason why I wouldn't store BTC with Bakkt, beyond those that apply to conventional exchanges like Coinbase.
Fine. But you were clearly making an argument that Bakkt would not have a positive impact on price action and moreover, would potentially have a negative one. This smacks of agenda and twisting of reality. Bakkt might not start a rally, but with Goldman and others coming on board to allow their institutional investors access to bitcoin, that is obviously a net positive.
The people using Bakkt arent this "we" that you are talking about. Keep your offline cold storage and your paper key. Bitcoin is big enough for everyone, including wall street.