I don't think this is a super good example of Bitcoin pooling.
People putting their money into a bank is not evidence of pooling.

To me this feels very similar to people saying "Blackrock bought x Bitcoin today" when the reality is that Blackrock clients bought x Bitcoin and that Bitcoin is actually a liability to Blackrock that they owe to their clients.

"Controlling" Bitcoin and "owning" Bitcoin are very different things.
You do seem to be discussing this around the 4-5 minute mark.

I also feel like it's a little inappropriate to claim that "cash-creates" redemption means that buying the ETF is not buying Bitcoin (especially since the only entities that can even engage in redemption are permissioned institutions called authorized participants). ETF Bitcoin is functionally the same as Bitcoin on exchanges. They are both IOUs that require Bitcoin collateral. These institutions are not shorting Bitcoin; they are buying the Bitcoin, and the owners of those IOUs are buying BTC by proxy.

The only thing that's going to stop them from claiming their money is bankruptcy, but I don't hear you making the claim that Coinbase or Blackrock are going to be bankrupt... in fact I think a lot of people would be quite happy if Blackrock went belly-up and would say it was well worth the impending bear market.

The world used gold as money for thousands of years, and you have not satisfactorily explained why Bitcoin could not be used in a similar way for at least a little while. Gold was also essentially a fixed money (especially compared to paper derivatives) and it also pooled, and it was also used as a payment system for thousands of years. There's an extreme disconnect here.

Yes, fixed money does pool and that can absolutely be a cause of stagnation.
Fixed money was also the foundation of the monetary system for millennia.
I have yet to see any type of rationalization or even acknowledgement of known history.