A man named Michael Saylor, who has lots of Bitcoin and runs a company called MicroStrategy, says that big banks and people in the government want to use Bitcoin. He is happy because a new rule lets more places keep and use Bitcoin safely. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalist, implying that Wall Street and Congress are fully on board with Bitcoin, while ignoring the fact that there may be varying degrees of support or resistance among different actors and stakeholders in these groups. A more accurate title could be "Some Members Of Wall Street And Congress Show Interest In Bitcoin - But What About Joe Biden?"
2. The article focuses too much on Michael Saylor's opinions and actions, giving him undue influence and authority over the topic of Bitcoin adoption. While Saylor is a prominent advocate and investor in Bitcoin, he does not represent the whole industry or the interests of all users and holders. A more balanced approach would be to include other perspectives from different sectors, such as finance, technology, regulatory, etc.
3. The article fails to acknowledge the potential risks and challenges that Bitcoin faces, both in terms of its volatility, security, scalability, environmental impact, and legal status. These are important issues that cannot be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, especially when considering the implications for a wider adoption and integration of Bitcoin into the mainstream financial system.
4. The article does not provide enough context or background information on the SEC policy that was repealed, nor does it explain how this will affect the future of Bitcoin custody and regulation. A more informative article would delve into the history and rationale behind the policy, as well as the implications for the crypto industry and investors.
5. The article uses emotional language and tone, such as "staunch", "proponent", "victories", etc., to convey a positive and enthusiastic attitude towards Bitcoin and its adoption. This may appeal to some readers who share the same sentiment, but it may also alienate or antagonize others who have different views or concerns about Bitcoin. A more neutral and objective article would avoid such language and present both sides of the argument in a respectful and balanced manner.