Citibank is set to roll out Bitcoin custody services, and I’ve read this news over and over again. Many people think it’s just another name added to the list of institutions, but in my view, the real weight is hidden in the words “custody.” Think back a few years ago, when banks mentioned $BTC mostly as warnings and risk notices—now the stance has completely flipped. In the past few years, institutional capital hasn’t been unwilling to buy BTC; it’s been stuck at the compliance custody stage: how private keys are stored, how audits will pass, and who is accountable if something goes wrong. Each of these questions is enough for the compliance department to reject the entire proposal. Now, a bank of Citibank’s scale is stepping in personally, effectively telling Wall Street in plain sight that BTC can be properly and legitimately placed onto the balance sheets of traditional finance. This isn’t a feel-good boost driven by emotion—it’s an integration at the infrastructure level. After this, more cautious capital will likely treat it as a signal to enter.

Of course, I also have concerns. The most fascinating thing about BTC is self-custody: when private keys are in your own hands, it’s truly digital gold. The more advanced bank custody becomes, the easier it is for the “chips” to concentrate among a small number of financial giants. In the long run, that could dilute BTC’s decentralized essence. But on balance, my judgment is clear: this step is greater in benefits than drawbacks. Without the compliance-custody “channel,” BTC will always remain a fringe asset. First, open the door—then you have the right to discuss the power struggle inside. Going forward, I’m not watching the price; I’m watching the degree of concentration in custody size. If too much of the share ends up in the hands of just two or three banks, that would be the truly worrying signal. Until then, I choose to keep holding my BTC and not let short-term volatility shake me out.