One of the biggest issues with Bitcoin as others have pointed out is the catch-22 of self custody. Another huge issue is offshore unregulated exchanges like FTX. The resolution is actually regulation that allows financial institutions like Banks to hold Bitcoin. Services like this already exist with companies such as Casa (keys[dot]casa) where you have a multi-signature wallet where one of the keys is held by them. The problem with Casa is that they cannot be FDIC insured. A 3 of 5 signature wallet can create a sliding scale of security vs ownership with the most security and most insurance being offered by the Bank where they hold 3 of the 5 keys. This may be attractive for people who want to own a little bit but not take on the risk. Banks may even do the purchase for you as well (for a fee of course). For those who say this is just the current system with different steps, the difference is the possibility of taking on 100% of the risk/ownership yourself. Just the possibility of that shifts the power dynamic in the clients favor. Additionally, once institutions get legal clarity, they can also start running their own lightning nodes which generate revenue in the form of fees. Since they will hold large amount of BTC reserves, they can compete for more traffic. More traffic equals more fees. And no, I am not saying lightning is in a place right now where this would happen; but what is today isn't what will be tomorrow. This is just conjecture obviously. Once such things are in the hands of such institutions (as well as an approved spot ETF in the US) then the narrative on MSM will shift (dear public, it is safe to play in this space now). IMO I believe that is is the actual reason as to why there has not been any regulatory clarity on BTC.