[hn_throwaway_99]

> Unlike every other attempt at electronic cash that came before it, Bitcoin also doesn't need the approval of any person, police force, legislative body, military, or government.

But then can't you see the irony of writing that sentence when the article title is literally "Spot Bitcoin ETF receives official approval from the SEC".

That's the thing that's so baffling to me - if you're saying BTC is so great that it doesn't need the support of government and social institutions, why the push so hard to get an ETF (multiple in fact!) when the rallying cry for crypto has always been "distributed, trustless currency".

[david_shi]

This is circular reasoning. It doesn't need the approval, what it shows is official capitulation to a "distributed, trustless currency".

That's the big news.

[metw02024]

On the contrary... bitcoin desperately needs this approval. The current (and future) price of BTC is absolutely predicated upon the greater fool theory.

The network is dependent on miners. Miners earn bitcoin but spend dollars to create it. They're dependent on price appreciation to provide the liquidity that sustains their business. Without this approval, who is going to continue to pay more for bitcoin?

[etherael]

Or what it shows is official acknowledgment that the rubes bought this narrative whilst if you look at the details, it's effectively a CBDC.

[psychlops]

It wasn't a push, it was a pull.