A Community With No Libra, Bakkt, ETFs and Institutions

[Lucius]

Crypto community exists without Libra and Bitcoin ETFs for the past 10 years, so it is today, and it is likely to be for years to come. I can understand the obsession with something as Bitcoin ETF which could pump the price of Bitcoin, but what is the purpose of connecting Libra with Bitcoin? The two have nothing to do with each other, centralized coin pegged with fiat (Libra) vs decentralized coin with limited supply (Bitcoin) are two different worlds.

Libra has a good chance of never seeing the light of day, it is so limited in its idea that almost the whole world has already opposed it in the beginning. As for other things, there is no adoption without cooperation with the current financial system whether we like it or not.

[dimastegar]

Crypto community exists without Libra and Bitcoin ETFs for the past 10 years, so it is today, and it is likely to be for years to come. I can understand the obsession with something as Bitcoin ETF which could pump the price of Bitcoin, but what is the purpose of connecting Libra with Bitcoin? The two have nothing to do with each other, centralized coin pegged with fiat (Libra) vs decentralized coin with limited supply (Bitcoin) are two different worlds.

Libra has a good chance of never seeing the light of day, it is so limited in its idea that almost the whole world has already opposed it in the beginning. As for other things, there is no adoption without cooperation with the current financial system whether we like it or not.

The hype and enthusiasm of the crypto community towards Libra, Bakkt and ETF is natural. Although Libra is centralized and contradicts the decentralized Bitcoin, Libra comes with the name Facebook. If Libra is truly released it is likely that many people will start adopting it.

[febriyana]

Government is don't like about decentralized thing.
So i think they will always try to block and banned cryptocurrency.
For community who love about decentralized is still support Bitcoin, we don't care about government. We need focus on mass adoption about blockchain technology.
There is maybe a hole about decentralized, so Facebook coming with their greedy project, to make crypto with centralized system. What the hell...
Bakkt, Bitwise, etc ETF i never use it. So i don't know is it give effect for Bitcoin or not.

[kryptqnick]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

If we are talking about the things you are mentioning themselves, then it's definitely not the real crypto adoption, I agree. After all, decentralization is a very big part of what Bitcoin is, and the free market and natural price formation are also a part of it. However, I think the idea of those who say these things are good is sometimes that with those projects more people will generally learn about cryptocurrencies, and then they'll get interested in the real ones (especially, in Bitcoin), which will boost adoption. And this certainly can happen, but I also think that there is more potential damage than benefit in that.

[pixie85]

Centralized adoption is still better than no adoption at all.

With no adoption tokens will slowly die because nobody will want to do anything but hold. Centralized adoption will give people a choice that is more than hold or sell. They will also have a choice to spend even if it's centralized spending. From there we can go into decentralized spending. It will always remain an option.

[teosanru]

Actually this is what decentralization is all about. Even if someone decides to launch anything he definitely can without approval from anyone LIBRA, Bakkt, ETF are examples of this. As long as people involved want to dive into this it is definitely legible. I know some would say that Bakkt is an exchange thus acting as an intermediary but so are almost every exchange and wallet working in cryptocurrency world too. We need to understand this that with the common folks a complete P2P world with no platform providing assistance will never be practical. People really want much more than just transferring of money to buy goods and services.

[DooMAD]

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

That's not fair. If you're expecting governments to be open minded enough to tolerate Bitcoin, then why don't you do the same and allow other entities to create their own money? People blame governments for not tolerating anything other than their own currency, but a lot people here do the same. In a free market money should be able to compete.

I'm conflicted on this one.  While it's probably healthy to maintain a reasonable distrust of governments, it doesn't necessarily mean we should place boundless trust in corporations either.  Sure, they're free to do it, but I also believe we have a responsibility to warn potential users about the dangers of such a service (should it ever get off the drawing board). 

Think of it this way.  If any individual on this forum launched a centralised service similar to Libra, where they had total control over the funds and people started to put their personal wealth into it, some here would naturally question if it was a scam.  Or they would question if the security was robust enough.  Or ask what safeguards are in place to prevent the service itself interfering with their transactions.  Why is it suddenly perfectly safe for a big-name company to do it and why should anyone trust them with their wealth?

It's worth pointing out that Facebook have already demonstrated security weaknesses.

Governments force you to use their hot air fiat currencies, and alternatives such as Bitcoin and Libra counter that.

But would Libra really counter it?  Considering that they need permission from governments to go live, I'm sure there will be many of the same restrictions as you'd be subject to in fiat currencies, which rather defeats the point of Libra being an alternative.  There are also numerous privacy concerns.  They already get a vast trove of information about their users via Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, so then add to that users' financial transactions and spending habits as well?  It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[barota]

you are right , and i hope people stop hoping much . for these things
bitcoin already grow without these etf or bakkt , by the way the last ( bakkt) Is it good if he controls the market in this way?
More than 20 percent price drop since the first days of launch!
i hope he will do somthing for to make prices above 10000 usd  per btc in short term

[carriebee]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin begins without ETF, BAKK but as more years come many are adopting bitcoin in their company, lives and in any ways. I think without any of mass adoption the price will not growing, mass adoption is very important so they know about bitcoin and how to use it. Although it's risky but we know what the benefit of bitcoin if you really understand how to manage and use it.

[Kyraishi]

Crypto community exists without Libra and Bitcoin ETFs for the past 10 years, so it is today, and it is likely to be for years to come. I can understand the obsession with something as Bitcoin ETF which could pump the price of Bitcoin, but what is the purpose of connecting Libra with Bitcoin? The two have nothing to do with each other, centralized coin pegged with fiat (Libra) vs decentralized coin with limited supply (Bitcoin) are two different worlds.

Libra has a good chance of never seeing the light of day, it is so limited in its idea that almost the whole world has already opposed it in the beginning. As for other things, there is no adoption without cooperation with the current financial system whether we like it or not.

That's a good point - we've seen too many companies and people focus on the connection Libra would have to BTC, when they are completely different things with different goals.

One's a decentralised crypto that focuses on giving power to the people, and another one is a centralised crypto made one a chain of large companies, and it's looking to conquer the industry.

[Broly46]

I can’t believe that two years has passed since the Libra news got announced and all the good ol’ Day of the hype we once enjoy the last crypto summer, btw they’re all here to rip any possible profit from crypto, so far their efforts are proved to be fruitless, I wouldn’t brother to spend even a few minutes of my life to know about their well being.

[asus09]

We have build big community for bitcoin and have to fight with Libra, Bakkt, ETFs and Institutions for make bitcoin stronger and not depend with them, many time bitcoin always have big effect after the community of ETFs and Bakkt make announce to reject bitcoin and make bitcoin price down, we have make big community how to get support with many country to allow bitcoin and make bitcoin have higher price at the next time and never have bad issued with above community.

[Lucius]

The hype and enthusiasm of the crypto community towards Libra, Bakkt and ETF is natural. Although Libra is centralized and contradicts the decentralized Bitcoin, Libra comes with the name Facebook. If Libra is truly released it is likely that many people will start adopting it.

People don’t really understand the basic things, so they mix things up that don't really have anything in common. When I saw the headline in one local newspaper "Here comes Libra, killer of Bitcoin" I just laughed at that statement. FB is powerful, but I think they took too much of a bite and that they could have been smarter in their plan. Personally, I don't even use FB and their possible product doesn't interest me at all.

I can pay directly with BTC for many things today, and I remember just a few years ago the value of 1 BTC was only $200. We have reached this point today without any ETFs, futures or some magic Libra coins. If we can attract just 3-4% (from total world population) of ordinary people to start using Bitcoin, it would be a great success.

[coin-investor]

The topic describes the issue for us. For us to become a decentralized, we should focus more on mass adoption. I know these may provide some mass adoption but with centralized adoption, it is useless and contradiction for bitcoin itself.

We cannot stop this from happening, it's bound to happen first, they will hate, then they will ignore you then they will praise you, then they will want to be with you, Facebook and these companies hate Bitcoin for the disruption they are bringing to the ecosystem, now after ten years, they want to be with us and they want to exploit this technology to their advantage, soon they will conquer us.

[micalith]

We have build big community for bitcoin and have to fight with Libra, Bakkt, ETFs and Institutions for make bitcoin stronger and not depend with them, many time bitcoin always have big effect after the community of ETFs and Bakkt make announce to reject bitcoin and make bitcoin price down, we have make big community how to get support with many country to allow bitcoin and make bitcoin have higher price at the next time and never have bad issued with above community.

Aren't we, bitcoin believers, against institutions? Governments are kinda an institution. On the other hand, most of the big companies feed from governments and they probably don't want a decentralized world. If we have Libra, Bakkt and other 'centralized-regulated' systems, we will be moving away from the roots of bitcoin I guess.

[xiboothrezi]

snip-

Aren't we, bitcoin believers, against institutions? Governments are kinda an institution. On the other hand, most of the big companies feed from governments and they probably don't want a decentralized world. If we have Libra, Bakkt and other 'centralized-regulated' systems, we will be moving away from the roots of bitcoin I guess.

In short this makes bitcoin more "friendly" to be accepted by the government so that it can be adopted en masse. Even though it is indeed the opposite of bitcoin's character. This decade is enough to prove, that bitcoin can still be a quality investment tool and commodity even though it is not fully accepted by the world, there are some countries that prohibit its use. However, overall, almost accepting bitcoin to be traded and invested even with caution because of high risk, but it is legal.

[target]

The adoption we have been aspiring from the beginning has consequences and the SEC getting into the middle is just one of it. We don't even need all of this since BTC will be useful still without them but since they are already here and launched like BAKKT, there is nothing left to do but go along. Libra and ETF has been discussed already, we may like it or not, approved or not, the threat is there already.

From the beginning, its just the marketplace that we all need. Somewhat like a silkroad but not involving illegal stuff I guess. Merchants accepting BTC and cryptocurrencies is all that is needed.

[DatKing]

I think we shouldn't go too hard on Libra. I know that Libra is a stable coin and different from Bitcoin. But also I think that Libra has more chance on being a local currency in countries compared to Bitcoin. In the end, Libra will not be volatile and the governments will like it.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Forget about libra, because chances are that it won't be released anyway.  And yes, I assume that if it does make it to market it will be centralized, but it's only one coin anyway and isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Bakkt is an exchange for institutions, and since none of us probably will ever use it, it shouldn't matter that it's centralized.  All of the other big exchanges are, and it really isn't a problem. 

You can't decentralize everything and I don't think you would want to necessarily.  That's capitalism for you.  There are always going to be institutions and organizations that exclude some people.  Either you can accept that or you go crazy.  Personally I don't have a problem with this, nor with any of those things mentioned in the op.

[Xxmodded]

Forget about libra, because chances are that it won't be released anyway.  And yes, I assume that if it does make it to market it will be centralized, but it's only one coin anyway and isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Bakkt is an exchange for institutions, and since none of us probably will ever use it, it shouldn't matter that it's centralized.  All of the other big exchanges are, and it really isn't a problem. 

You can't decentralize everything and I don't think you would want to necessarily.  That's capitalism for you.  There are always going to be institutions and organizations that exclude some people.  Either you can accept that or you go crazy.  Personally I don't have a problem with this, nor with any of those things mentioned in the op.

Why have think with Libra coin after two months do not have launching to public, today Libra team still not working with their project based on schedule where their coin listing and can trade on exchange market, Libra coin still not look what kind of coin will be crypto part and depend with their self without have connection with bitcoin and altcoin, maybe they have own platform.