Anyone who believes that banks want Bitcoin because of what it represents in its core idea is either crazy or doesn't understand how the system works. Banks were created so that a very narrow group of people could control everyone else and make extra profits - and even today we see that politics and banks are two wings of the same body.

In addition, as you say, they are the biggest money launderers in the world, and on the other hand, I believe that banks are among the biggest sponsors of attacks on Bitcoin, whether it is that BTC mining causes climate change, or that it consumes too much electricity, so we will remain in the dark - and of course only criminals, terrorists and generally those who want to hide something work with BTC.

When they didn't manage to destroy the whole thing or marginalize it enough to slowly disappear in the wasteland of the internet, they decided on another tactic. The goal is obviously to profit from BTC as much as possible, while at the same time moving as many people away from the idea that it is the currency they should use.

Is it realistic to speculate that by the end of this decade maybe even 50% of all BTC will be in the possession of various ETFs, individuals like Saylor and others like him and maybe even central banks? Someone may not see too much of a problem in this, but since BTC spot ETFs were approved in the US, large companies like BlackRock have become very interested in BTC mining companies in which they have already acquired significant stakes.

I'm just curious if all this is purely for profit, or if there's an idea behind it to try to centralize Bitcoin to some extent. It should not be forgotten that BlackRock once announced that in the case of a hard fork, they reserve the right to follow the chain they consider better, not necessarily the one chosen by the majority of the community.