~snip~
Anyone that would purchase Bitcoin and leave it in the bank is not acting with due caution and unfortunately a lot of the people using crypto as investments don't understand that.
I would even conclude that most refuse to understand because it's easier that way, if only profit is at stake, then that's the only thing that matters in the end. If the bank provides guarantees and insurances for such crypto deposits, many will consider it a much better option than using CEX or non-custodial wallets.
On the one hand, the fact that they offer it to you at the bank, in the eyes of society,
gives it a good reputation, and on the other hand, although you are right, it's like buying bitcoin on Coinbase or others and leaving it there.
I can agree with you here, because most people look for some kind of confirmation from the government, politicians or banks in order to believe that something is legitimate, and the Bitcoin logo on the door of a well-known bank is certainly a good advertisement and gives people some kind of confidence in something. The only question is whether banks want to profit only from fees, or would they also offer the possibility of withdrawals to non-custodial wallets? If that option existed, then I personally would not have anything against banks becoming part of the game.
Michal Saylor told an anecdote about how a subsidiary of Bank of America went from telling him that not only could he not buy bitcoin there, but that they could not even talk about it, to offering bitcoin trading and custody services. As much as it departs from Satoshi's initial idea, I prefer the latter.
If I'm not mistaken, a few days ago I saw that
BOA became one of the largest owners of shares in MicroStrategy (Q1 2023), so we can say that such banks are also changing their strategy a bit, because that bank was known for its extremely negative attitude towards Bitcoin in the past.