Sending bitcoin to the bank defeats the purpose for which it was created. Bitcoin signifies "freedom of the unbanked," so what is the point of sending it to the bank then? Besides, the bank is a third party, and Bitcoin came as a rescue from third parties, and this also includes the banks which uses every opportunity it has to exploit people from their hard earned resources because of the fact that the government backs them up for their dirty acts. Even if the banks accept bitcoin, it will be the last thing I will ever do to deposit my bitcoin with the bank when I can keep it under my own custody.
True. But if banks start accepting BTC deposits, most people won't hesitate to entrust their coins in them. They prefer convenience above all else. This will ultimately enrich banks, as they profit from customers' holdings. Although, I don't think most banks would be willing to take that risk. Especially when Bitcoin is volatile.
Besides, adopting Bitcoin will uncover banks' dirty schemes. It is a transparent ledger, after all. Banks are better off with Fiat because they can manipulate it to "their hearts' content". But who knows? With "Wall Street" in the game, anything's possible. Let's us hope Bitcoin doesn't turn centralized in the long run.
There are those who would be quick to deposit with the bank, but I strongly believe core Bitcoin enthusiasts would never make such a mistake because they already know the implications, and as for the banks, all they do is for profit. Believe me, when it comes to banks handling anything financial, they must always look for what to use in closing their tracks so that no one may know, and I would not be surprised to see banks coming up with their own crypto App designed for their nefarious act, for which they would compel people to use so they can easily do what they want from their end.
Whether the market is volatile or not doesn't concern the banks; all they care about is their profit. As long as they get their own cut or share from every transaction that goes on within their ecosystem, they are good to go, but I am wondering the criteria they would likely use to measure one's asset deposited with them for transaction records. whether by monetary value as at when deposited, or the exact volume or quantity deposited, as this would be the basis on which transactions involving bitcoin are being carried out in the bank.
And that is where the biggest concern lies because banks are not charities they never handle assets without a way to profit from them if they ever integrate bitcoin into their system it won’t be out of goodwill but rather to design a model where they get their cut from every single move deposits withdrawals transfers and maybe even by rehypothecating assets just like they do with fiat the whole idea of bitcoin was born to escape that system to allow people true custody and true ownership without middlemen stepping in so the thought of handing it back to banks feels like undoing the very foundation it was built on.
Still it’s also realistic to admit that many people don’t want the responsibility of holding their own keys managing cold wallets or worrying about security they will trade custody for convenience any day and that is where banks see opportunity they will likely measure deposits in fiat value at the time of entry since volatility complicates accounting but in doing so they strip bitcoin of its identity and turn it into just another line item on a balance sheet in the end it will come down to choice those who value sovereignty will never let banks hold their coins while those who prioritize convenience will hand it over willingly the real test will be whether bitcoin as an ecosystem can maintain its ethos of decentralization while still existing in a world where banks inevitably try to mold it into their profit machine.