Recently, BlackRock unveiled an informative video elucidating Bitcoin, which I considered remarkable—it’s astonishing to witness Bitcoin being talked about on such a significant platform. However, naturally, Bitcoin X (Twitter) experienced a freak-out regarding one particular phrase in the video: “There is no assurance that Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap will not be altered.”
HealthRnager from Natural News asserted, “Bitcoin has grown excessively centralized, and now the inappropriate individuals predominantly govern its algorithms. They are WARNING you beforehand about their intentions.”
Now, allow me to clarify: this is utter drivel. The uproar is exaggerated, and the notion that BlackRock would—or even could—modify bitcoin’s supply is preposterous. The comment in their video holds technical veracity, but it’s merely a legal disclaimer. It doesn’t imply that BlackRock is scheming to inflate bitcoin’s supply. Furthermore, even if they intended to, they lack the authority to execute it.
Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is essential—it’s not debatable. The entire Bitcoin ecosystem—miners, developers, and nodes—functions based on this fundamental principle. Without it, Bitcoin wouldn’t exist as Bitcoin. And although BlackRock is a financial behemoth and possesses over 500,000 Bitcoin for its ETF, its sway over Bitcoin is essentially negligible.
Bitcoin operates under a proof-of-work (PoW) framework, not a proof-of-stake (PoS) model. The amount of bitcoin BlackRock owns is inconsequential; economic nodes possess the real authority.
Now, let’s assume the role of devil’s advocate for a moment. Suppose BlackRock attempts to suggest a protocol modification to amplify bitcoin’s supply. What occurs? The extensive network of nodes would simply dismiss it. Bitcoin’s past validates this. Recall Roger Ver and the Bitcoin Cash fork? He had substantial influence and assets, yet his variant of bitcoin became insignificant because the majority of economic participants did not follow his lead.
If Bitcoin were susceptible to control by a solitary entity like BlackRock, it would have faltered long ago. The U.S. government, with its relentless money printer, could effortlessly obtain 10% of the supply if that’s all it took to dominate Bitcoin. Yet, that is not how Bitcoin operates. Its decentralized essence guarantees that no single entity—regardless of its strength—can dictate its conditions.
So, cease fretting about BlackRock “altering” Bitcoin. Their influence encounters strict boundaries. Even if they attempted to persuade developers to amend the protocol, nodes would refuse it. Bitcoin’s decentralization represents its utmost advantage, and no one—not BlackRock, not Michael Saylor—can modify that.
This article is a Take. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not inherently represent those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
