📜 Codex ATF – Edition 006. The Annexation Protocol (On how banks "stole" the blockchain).
The subject of blockchain in relation to the banking system has moved from the "threat" phase to that of "strategic integration". If a few years ago banks viewed this technology with skepticism, in 2026 we see a maturation of the relationship, defined by pragmatism and regulation.
The Evolution from "Crypto" to "Digital Assets" - CBDCs and the Digital Euro
Banks are no longer just talking about Bitcoin, but about the tokenization of real assets (RWA - Real World Assets). Financial institutions are exploring moving traditional assets (stocks, bonds, real estate) to the blockchain to reduce settlement time from days to seconds. Many large banks have started to offer custody services for digital assets, becoming modern "safes" for the private keys of institutional clients.
The attitude of central banks seems to have changed radically. It is no longer a question of “if”, but of “how” and “when”… the Euro Digital project is in an advanced phase (after the adoption of the necessary regulations), preparing the ground for practical tests. But there is a fear of “disintermediation” (the possibility of people holding their money directly with the central bank), which is why commercial banks insist on a hybrid model in which they remain the interface with the customer.
Banks have understood that, if they do not offer their own solutions, customers will migrate to stablecoins issued by tech entities (such as #Tether or #Circle).
Qivalis Project: A concrete example is the collaboration of 10 European banks (such as #ING or #UniCredit) to launch a stablecoin linked to the euro by the second half of 2026. The goal is to streamline cross-border payments and preserve European monetary sovereignty.
Instant payments: Blockchain technology is being used “under the hood” to replace legacy systems (like #SWIFT) with 24/7 money flows.
What is happening would be just a form of very well-calculated “pacifism”. Banks are no longer trying to break down the blockchain wall, but have realized that it is much more profitable to build counters on it. If we look under this mask of diplomacy, their current attitude is a mixture of “if you can’t beat them, buy them” and “let’s make the rules”.
Banks have gone from statements like “Bitcoin is a fraud” (Jamie Dimon’s famous words from a few years ago) to launching their own ETFs and trading platforms. They have not really become fans of decentralization. They simply saw that they were losing massive fees to platforms like Binance or Coinbase, so they decided it was time to “make peace” to bring the money back into their system.
All banking institutions love blockchain technology, but they hate the total transparency and lack of control. They promote private blockchains (permissioned or Private Ledgers), where they decide who is allowed to participate and who is not. It’s like saying: “We agree with the internet, but only if it’s an intranet that we control.”
Banks didn’t “adopt” blockchain because they understood its philosophy of financial freedom, but because they wanted to extract its engine and put it on their old rusty chassis. What is being sold to us today as the “digital banking revolution” is, in fact, the opposite of the idea that Satoshi Nakamoto started from… that is, instead of a global network without a master, we get “house blockchains”, where the bank has the Delete and Freeze buttons. It is a puppet show where the blockchain is just the string, and the banker is the one pulling it.
There is a lot of talk about “user protection”, but in reality, large financial institutions have embraced regulations (such as MiCA or the CBDC framework) for a selfish reason: eliminating small competition… the state and the banks have created an exclusive club. If you are a startup with a brilliant idea, you hit a wall of bureaucracy that costs millions. Their “pacifism” applies only to themselves; for the rest, it is economic warfare through impossible bans and licenses.
Banks are taking advantage of every cyberattack in the crypto world to say, “See? It’s the Wild West out there. Bring your money to us.”
This security comes at a hidden price: complete loss of privacy. In the “futuristic” banking system, every transaction on their blockchain is an automatic report sent to the authorities. You’re no longer an asset owner, you’re a tenant in your own digital wallet, with the bank acting as the administrator who can change your name at any time.
I bet you what you want that they’re excited about the tokenization of assets (RWA) not because they want to democratize access to investment, but because blockchain lowers their operating costs. They want to keep all the efficiency gains without lowering the fees for the end customer. It’s “modernization” only for their profit, while for the user it’s just another number on a screen,as difficult to withdraw or move as before.
I don't know, but in part we're dealing with a centralized future in a decentralized package - the banks' futuristic attitude is an exercise in transforming a technology of liberation into one of more efficient surveillance and taxation. This is not peace, this is forced occupation.
Look, for example, at the greatest evidence of toxic "pacifism" is the banks' enthusiasm for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). We're told it will be "like cash, but on your phone".
It is, in effect, the end of money as we know it. In a blockchain system controlled by the state and banks, money becomes programmable. Imagine a future where your government subsidy or even your salary has an expiration date (it has to be spent by the end of the month to "stimulate the economy"), or where you can't buy certain products because your "carbon footprint" is too high. This is not evolution, it's a social training mechanism.
The basic principle of blockchain is “Not your keys, not your coins” (If you don’t have the keys, it’s not your money - we all know that - yet how many of us are aware of the importance of those words!!?? ). Through custody services, banks are trying to reintroduce the concept of “fractional reserve” into the world of digital assets. They will sell “paper” that says you have Bitcoin, while they use your assets behind it for other speculations. They want to turn digital gold back into paper banknotes without any cover.
It’s fascinating how the institutions that 10 years ago blocked our accounts if we sent money to a crypto exchange, are now organizing “Hackathons” and conferences about Web3....They didn’t invent anything. They waited for thousands of idealistic developers and risky startups to test the technology, fail, learn from their mistakes, and now they come, with their infinite capital, to buy everything that is ready-made. It's technological vampirism disguised as "support for the ecosystem." They don't innovate, they just annex territories already conquered by others.
- Every step that banks take towards blockchain is accompanied by an intensification of KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) policies.
Blockchain was created to provide privacy in a hyper-surveilled world. Banks have managed to turn the page: they use the transparency of blockchain not to be transparent to us, but so that we can be totally transparent to them. They want a world in which every coffee you buy leaves a permanent digital trace that the bank's AI can analyze to decide your credit score or "degree of obedience."
It's the height of irony that a system that maintains 24/7 illuminated skyscrapers, fleets of armored cars, and servers running code from our grandparents' time should be giving lessons in ecology. Their “green blockchain” is only effective because it is centralized and dictatorial. It doesn’t consume energy because it doesn’t need consensus, only the order of the top. They sell us “sustainability” as a moral virtue, when it’s just a way to reduce their operational costs while limiting our access to truly secure and independent networks.
Banks often use the humanitarian argument: “We’re going to use blockchain to bring banking services to the 2 billion people who don’t have an account.”......Let’s be serious!!! They’re not interested in social inclusion in villages in Africa or Asia. They’re interested in digitally colonizing new markets where they couldn’t reach with physical branches. They want to turn every person on the planet into a data point on a ledger that they can tax, monitor, and, if necessary, block. This isn’t democratization, this is digital feudalism with a mobile-friendly interface.
The banking system has largely not made peace with blockchain; has come to terms with the fact that it can no longer ignore technology. Their “futuristic” attitude is actually a desperate attempt to stop time in its tracks. They want the benefits of the speed of the internet, but with the control of the iron age.
If blockchain was created to be the “internet of money” — free and open — the banks want to turn it into the “cable TV of money”: you only get the channels they approve, at the price they set, and they can cut you off at any time if you are not a good “viewer.”
📜Discover the editorial side of #ATF — ideas, reflections, and blockchain as memory.
Explore the Codex ATF series.:
đź“‘ Edition 001: Open Archives
đź“‘ Edition 002: No rewards in LTC, but Litecoin in the DNA
đź“‘Edition 003: Artificial Intelligence in Digital Life. Are you using AI in your online activities? Do you use it or just observe it?
đź“‘ Edition 004:SWAP.HIVE:ATFGuide - Rewards and Risks
📑Edition 005: Litecoin’s Journey to 150 $ - Between Fair Wind and Volatility Storm
Note about images - All images in this blog post were created with the assistance of Microsoft Copilot, an artificial intelligence tool developed by Microsoft. They are artistic visualizations intended to illustrate the narrative themes and do not depict real events or individuals.