They are creating kind of derivative products for investors who don't mind about non custody and only want something easy, quick, and can do things for them without their own actions.

I see it as risky as how people believe and use Bitcoin wrapped tokens, there are many such wrapped tokens, as with a principle of "bitcoin is only bitcoin on Bitcoin blockchain", I can not trust products from Wall Street, and any Bitcoin Wrapped Tokens on any altcoin blockchain.

I only invest my money in bitcoin on Bitcoin blockchain, and things like Wall Street's paper Bitcoin, Wrapped Bitcoin tokens on alt chains are not in my consideration list. I never consider to have any of them in my portfolio, because I know they don't give my actual bitcoins, and I know it's very risky.

I think there is  some truth in your theory, but we can't ignore the fact that Bitcoin is getting to that stage where the returns will not be as high as they used to.
There was a time when adding or removing 1500btc which is approximately worth $100 million, from the market would cause a lot of price movement. It can be up or down depending on which way the money went, but now, it's no longer like that. The volatility has reduced, and so have the returns.
For bitcoin to increase by 10% right now, it means about $130 billion (rough figure, not actual figure) needs to be added to it. That is a lot of money. It wasn't like this in the past.
The more the market cap of an asset increases, the slower its returns because it now requirs more money to get to a certain amounts.
There were times when adding $100 billion to Bitcoin m would push the price up by 20%-30%, but now, it's less than a 10% increase.

None of us can verify or audit over the counter markets. It’s a possibility that exchanges and OTC markets are selling paper Bitcoin and running fractional reserves. For example, everything about Binance stinks over the last 18 months. I don’t know if we will ever really know but Bitcoin has performed quite poorly since ETCs were approved in comparison to its past.

Maybe, but why would it need to be "Wall Street" doing this per se?

Unlike traditional securities, anybody on the planet can manipulate the Bitcoin market. All you need is a bunch of money and a plan.

For instance, there's HyperLiquid BTC perps:

https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/trade/BTC

(I don't know too much about HL, but this is just one example).

Since ETF came onboard and institutional adoption became a thing, we have seen so much of these big pockets like microstrategy try to manipulate the market by claiming they want to accumulate more but only yo sell of just to create volatility and then buy at a lower price when retailers panic sell.
Am not surprised about walk street also being in the loop to exploit Bitcoin because I think the goal for them is to neutralize retail soverignty while making Bitcoin just like another macro correlated asset which is majorly controlled by the same traditional financial institutions it was created to evade and escape.

That's why we see most banks these days coming up with ideas of staking your Bitcoin to take loans or other funny things just to be in on it and have control over Bitcoin bit by bit.

We may just be seeing the near end of a supply driven bull run because of the present day paper Bitcoin that's in a way creating a different market that's absorbing the buying pressure and capping the growth price of Bitcoin.

I tried finding the real gap here, but I could not find any reliable numbers to mention. BlackRock holds a considerable amount of BTC, and I doubt if they ever have paper BTC, but that's not confirmed because I found no good source to support the claim that they have not done it. Maybe they created BTC on paper. But I am pretty much sure BlackRock's services like futures, perpetual contracts, etc. are backed by real BTC, not paper BTC.

Although, I did find one example in which an ETF company providing futures services owns zero BTC, and the business they are doing is in billions. ProShares (BITO) holds 0 BTC, but its overall BTC futures and swap exposure is around $1.292 billion. They hold cash and money market investments as collateral. Their prospectus also explicitly says they don't directly invest in BTC.

Visit page 3, first paragraph

So, bro, I think we already have our answer here. If bigger companies have way more BTC than the exposure they are providing, then there are companies like BITO that have zero BTC but are giving people exposure to billions of dollars worth of BTC. I am sure there will be more, but we already have our answer now.

If they invested in real BTC instead of giving exposure through paper BTC, then the price would have increased.

The case of Wall street is they didn't join just to adapt, but rather they participate because they see there's huge demand coming up and want to earn from it.

This is maybe the reason why they create this products. To have control on the products they created. With that they create Spot Bitcoin ETF and Bitcoin Futures ETF, which only gives exposure to their clients https://www.altrady.com/blog/cryptocurrency/bitcoin-etf-explained

Talking about the price? We don't know what's going to happen, since all we have here is to speculate.

I personally think it’s the most approached type of investment in the world and having known this it just best to integrate it into the modern day currency. Whoever is doing it and not just Strategy is trying to be the pioneer of the new money system. This type of derivative is rooted down history, not just where gold became an exchange means but before gold.

Perhaps the western world have a huge market for people who do not like to be responsible but prefer assets to be managed and handled by a third party which is what they have just brought back but into bitcoin system and of course it’s going to work since most people complain already, coped with the recent hackings.

Not necessarily. BITO is a good example of how you can get Bitcoin exposure through futures without needing to hold the underlying asset. You can see how you can have excess selling of BTC on an exchange. This will impact the spot market through the trading and arbitrage. However, I don’t feel we can assume that if it wasn’t for the futures, $x amount would have been invested into Bitcoin. I do agree that this should be considered but to prove it is the main factor causing lower price growth is another thing.