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.
Banks are always after their pocket and what would benefit them and so doing they dont mind whatever the community says or does as long as they have the governments backings they act and behave as it pleases them but there are still some lazy ones who would patronize their services even after knowing fully well the repercussion of sending their assets to the bank, they would still do such a nasty thing just to be safe that if anything happens to their assets, they have someone to hold responsible for it thats all.
As for the asset and monetary value and measurement when depositing, is what I am really eager to know how the bank would handle such as bitcoin is a volatile asset and not fiat. Banks can be very funny at times and can come up with policy that would look enticing to bitcoin holders but it is just a trap to get them coming and after which they quickly change their policy to suit themselves for their own benefit. Maybe those who have had the experience with banks funny and cunny approach could tell better and not make the mistake of sending their bitcoin to the bank for safe keeping.