Your central argument is probably right: Big banks - or any financially driven entity - would like to have control over money or products or assets, etc. - no matter the long-term financial harm that such control might cause for society as a whole.
On the other hand, your fair conclusion is supported with a lot of conspiracy baiting and unproved assumptions. What bothers me is that you didn't need to promote an anger-inducing conspiracy theory to support your mostly correct thesis. In promoting a provocative, and anger-inducing false narrative, you do no better than big corporations who also market false narratives to support their bottom line. The only difference is that they pay a marketing department, while you get paid to manipulate the anger of individuals against financial institutions.
To speak out against greed and financial disparity does not require our community to believe in false narratives. The best way to oppose greed and financial hording among big investors and banks is to use truth, logic, and the legal channels available to us (including free speech -- minus the conspiracy nonsense!).
You've got every right to promote your fictional stories; but it doesn't do a service for the poor or financially downtrodden among us that you would use conspiracy theories to lead a change in social thinking. We need truth and due process, not mobs of angry people being riled up with your fantasy Bilderberg nonsense. Of course rich people would get together to discuss world politics and society... you provide no evidence that such a group influences bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, or anything at all. Speak about what you know, and before indicting institutions and groups of people, try to provide evidence for your assertions. That would give more credibility to Steemit.
What person wants to belong to this community if it becomes a conspiracy mess? It'll evaporate into an incestuous, nonsense platform with posts like yours.