The fiat monetary system derives its power by monopolising the function of MoE- ie payments between participants in the local and global economies. The power of this is clear when you look at SWIFT. The power of this is clear when you look at how at a nation state level everyones need of fiat money in order to transact in the national economy delivers the power to tax and debase to governments and bankers. Government debt is extended by bankers because of governments ability to tax.

As long as Bitcoin is increasingly seen as and used as a commodity it does not threaten the fiat monetary systems power base derived from the monopoly over MoE.

The longer and more entrenched the narrative of Bitcoin being a speculative commodity the less tenable is any claim for the need for private custody- if the majority of Bitcoin hodlers are in it for the speculative SoV gains why is private custody even required? Why not eliminate the 'problem' of AML by restricting custody to 'trusted' institutional custodians?

Bitcoins capacity to operate as a P2P payments protocol is being degraded constantly because every sat that is accumulated into institutional custody is no longer available for P2P payments. Within 5 years most Bitcoin could be held by institutions. Institutions which can be forced to comply with a ban on private custody.

At that point an order 6102B could offer to buy all privately held sats at market price. Those who did not surrender would only be able to trade on a black market- if the majority were invested with the purpose of speculative gain then its reasonable to expect that the majority of private hodlers would surrender custody.

The bankers would have then captured and controlled the protocol into a harmless speculative commodity shadow of the white papers revolutionary intent. As long as MoE use of Bitcoin is minimal there is anyway probably no need to ban private custody- because when used as a speculative commodity the protocol is not directly challenging the fiat system.