How do you figure? I've heard this before but I don't get it. If bitcoin is to be treated like currency, well, that would be in their wheelhouse right? And if bitcoin is to be treated as a speculative asset, that would also be in their wheelhouse?

My interpretation is that bitcoin is not "for the man", and therefor "the man" will not like or want it. But "the man" would trade in gilded gizzards if that would make them money.

What am I missing?

Decentralized finance, in theory at least, undermines their power to determine the rules of the game: the decentralized nature of DeFi potentially dimishes the ability of financial lobbyists and the revolving door to influence regulation and policy. It also enables the lightning-fast rise of what would be serious competitors for JPM's customers. That's why I think that, if DeFi were to actually get big enough, companies like JPM would for a change start crying for MORE regulation. All in the name of protecting easily-swindled retail investors, of course.

"The man" wants his pound of flesh for as many financial transactions in the economy as possible, extracting various kinds of fees.

Permissionless public-ledger cryptocurrencies cut out the priviledged middlemen.

If BTC does well, other cryptocurrencies will likely do well, which means DeFi will do well, which presumably means less people needing JPMorgan as an intermediary.

Can you explain that in smaller words, with more verbs? I'm also under the impression that a big smart contract went tits up recently and the establishment resorted to legal threats due to a huge loss of money which isn't confidence inspiring.

But more to the point, what would stop JPMorgan from getting in on the game if there was money to be made?

Nothing will stop JPMorgan from getting into the game who are trying to middleman / rent-seek from end users desiring a bridge from traditional finance to DeFi. However, as DeFi matures and new generations of users become accustomed to working directly with the technology, the role of the rent-seekers is systemically eliminated.

Long-term, it is in TradFi's best interested to oppose the emergence of DeFi. I predict they will use common and tired arguments to push for strong government regulations similar to those on TradFi, to encumber it and add to their own value-prop.

Also, some smart contracts can and will implode on occasion and that is fine. DeFi returns power (and responsibility) to the users, but as they are not used to having this level of responsibility there are bound to be losses here and there due to technical incompetence.

The real question is who Coinbase does their fiat banking with...