What he is saying is that if Bitcoin remains as a largely speculative commodity it is not performing the role of a monetary system. The major part of the value of a monetary system is in the way that it enables people and businesses to interact- exchanging goods and services with a neutral medium of exchange. In doing this a monetary system adds HUGE value to an economy...because by facilitating the exchange of value between participants it enables economic growth. Bitcoin was proposed as a P2P payments protocol- enabling you and me to exchange value/trade without any intermediary capable of censoring our interactions. This challenges the legacy fiat operators as it threatens to undermine their near complete hegemony over MoE between participants in the economy. So the banks and governments have very slyly worked to obstruct the use of Bitcoin as a MoE. Businesses who dare offer payment in Bitcoin risk being sanctioned by their regular fiat bankers. If they get past that they are required in most jurisdictions to record all transactions and pay tax on gains in a very complex and inconvenient manner. This tax requirement is also imposed on all consumers daring to use Bitcoin as a MoE. Combined these impositions have succeeded in crippling Bitcoins adoption as a MoE. At the same time Bitcoin has been allowed and even encouraged as a speculative commodity. ETFs have been allowed in this context and the ETFs concentrate custody of Bitcoin into a small group of institutional custodians who expressly prevent the Bitcoin held under their custody from being used as a P2P MoE. At current rates of institutional custody where Bitcoin is being held on behalf of investors as a speculative commodity, MOST bitcoin will be held in this way within 6-7 years.

If Bitcoin can be mostly prevented from being used as a MoE it renders it much less of a competitor and threat to the legacy fiat operators. You sometimes hear bankers cry- 'oh Bitcoin it adds no value' - they are of course sly hypocrits as they have been central to obstructing Bitcoins use as a MoE where it would demonstrably be adding value by enabling more convenient trade and exchange for participants in the protocol.

As long as the fiat operators continue to succeed in obstructing Bitcoin use as a MoE a ban on private custody may never be required- but at the same time the rapid institutional custody being accumulated in US jurisdiction would make such a E.O. 6102 style ban much more effective and practicable...if required...

It is not unreasonable to expect that if Bitcoin continues to be managed into a primarily speculative commodity narrative and use it does not have a good long term prospect of enduring value because it is not being used as a monetary system, despite having been designed to be one- it has instead been slyly captured and controlled, corralled into a limited and narrow use case where as a speculative commodity it neither threatens fiat hegemony nor adds significant value for participants. As a primarily speculative commodity it is more akin to a PONZI scheme than a monetary system.