The cryptocurrency community is once again in turmoil! Renowned Bitcoin analyst PlanB (@100trillionUSD) recently admitted that he has moved his Bitcoin holdings into ETFs (Exchange-Traded Funds). This move has shocked many Bitcoin maximalists (Maxis), as it signifies his abandonment of the self-custody principle in favor of entrusting traditional financial institutions.
On X (formerly Twitter), he stated:
This is not just a shift in personal investment strategy but a larger debate of faith vs. reality. Does Bitcoin’s decentralization need to be absolute, or should we seek a middle ground?
🔴 "Betraying the Faith"? The Challenge to Bitcoin’s Decentralized Spirit
Bitcoin was created in response to the 2008 financial crisis, with its founder, Satoshi Nakamoto, designing a system that eliminates the need for reliance on traditional financial institutions. Hence, the phrase "Not your keys, not your coins" has become a core belief in the Bitcoin community—only those who hold their private keys truly own their Bitcoin.
However, PlanB’s move raises a fundamental question: Does holding Bitcoin always have to mean extreme decentralization?
With Bitcoin adoption growing, the market is no longer a "tech enthusiast’s playground" like it was in the 2010s. Institutional investors and traditional market participants have entered the space, many of whom are unwilling to learn about private key management, cold wallets, or the risks of losing their Bitcoin permanently due to a small mistake. ETFs and other financial products provide a structured, regulated alternative that lowers entry barriers and offers security.
But does this "convenience" also mean that Bitcoin is slowly drifting toward centralization, ultimately losing the freedom it was originally designed to provide?
🟢 The Ultimate Ideal of Decentralization or a Practical Compromise with Centralization?
Bitcoin purists insist that decentralization is its core value; otherwise, it would be no different from traditional fiat currency. However, the reality is that complete decentralization is not suitable for everyone. In fact, for most investors, the risk of full self-custody may outweigh the risks of trusting centralized institutions.
👉 If you lose your private key, your Bitcoin is gone forever.
👉 If you use a centralized exchange or ETF, you relinquish full control but gain regulatory security and convenience.
This creates a paradox:
Bitcoin derives its value from decentralization, yet its adoption relies on centralized solutions that make it more accessible.
Extreme decentralization could limit Bitcoin to a niche group of tech experts rather than a truly global currency.
PlanB’s decision reflects a broader trend in the market—many are beginning to see "absolute decentralization" as impractical and instead seek a balance between security and convenience.
⚖️ The Middle Ground: What Path Should Bitcoin Take?
PlanB’s move does not mean that Bitcoin ETFs are the only correct choice, but it does highlight a shift in the market: Bitcoin is gradually being absorbed into the traditional financial system and becoming a regulated asset class.
So, will Bitcoin’s future lie in an absolute decentralization vs. complete centralization debate, or will it find a middle ground? Potential directions include:
1️⃣ A "Hybrid Model" – Investors could hold some Bitcoin in ETFs or centralized exchanges for liquidity and convenience, while keeping a portion in cold wallets for security.
2️⃣ The Rise of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) – DeFi protocols could offer financial services similar to traditional institutions but without full reliance on centralized entities.
3️⃣ Education and Better Custodial Tools – As technology evolves, simpler and more secure self-custody solutions may emerge, allowing mainstream investors to manage their own keys without excessive risk.
What do you think? Has PlanB betrayed Bitcoin’s original vision, or is there a middle ground between decentralization and centralization?