Institutional adoption, good or bad for btc long-term?

[Josefjix]

What happened to the price of bitcoin last Friday night when $19B were liquidated out of the market that cause the price to be were it is today.

According to rumor, said that Blackrock sold heavy quantity of bitcoin that drastically pull the price downward. My point is this, when institution sell out, the outcome is quite different, when the reverse, the outcome too is different.

Everything that has good effect suddenly has bad effect too, and as such, the only effect would be on the price, positively or negatively.

Should have been a problem if institution can manipulate the decentralization aspect, influence users to migrate from using crypto from using its original purpose to another thing else, but that cant be possible.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Institutional adoption of bitcoin together with government adoption serves nothing to threat us from believing whether if one day Bitcoin will be censored or centralized, all these has been finished and a complete job done from the blockchain about bitcoin protocols, they can't be manipulated and those that have also investigated by adoption will also want to see it rising more than they have thought of it before because of being profitable in it.

[Localhostspeed]

Looking at things on the plus side: more institutions entering the space means greater legitimacy, deeper liquidity, and smoother infrastructure. Spot Bitcoin ETFs, corporate treasuries holding BTC, and clearer regulation all make it simpler and safer for big money to flow in. Infact I believe this mitigates against volatility and help build a sturdier price floor.

But on the flip side, I feel institutional dominance could also lead to centralization and reduce the decentralization ideals that attract many to crypto. Also, more regulation might squeeze out innovation eventually if it is too restrictive.

I am still brooding over the question but I feel I should drop it here and hear more opinions from other bright minds, please let me know what you think.

Without the institutional investors, Bitcoin will still do well but the rate at which it's going to grow will not be that fast like the way we are seeing the growth today. Retail investors are weak hands, they don't have confidence like institutional investors, if all retail investors leaves Bitcoin today it will do well but if the institutional investors are to abandoned Bitcoin today, the impact isn't going to be a small one, the price will be chopped off in the market due to sell pressure.

The institutional investors are good for every market, they are good and important for it's development. The institutional investors have impact on the government and has there ways of manipulating government than for ordinary person that became a millionaire through Bitcoin to talk to the government. If Micheal Saylor doesn't have it's own company and backing, I don't think we will be here like how I was fast for Bitcoin to reach $125k all time high.

[Hyphen(-)]

If we read the Bitcoin whitepaper, it is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system without a third party (without banks). But we can currently see, many banks and institutions have invested a part of their money in Bitcoin or ETFs. It would be better if many people owned Bitcoin, but that could still happen. At the moment, it is perhaps a time that Bitcoin is used by the big players and people are gaining more confidence in it, so that they in the future will own Bitcoins and hold them in their own wallets.

I just feel that these institutional investors, banks, and government are trying to accumulate more Bitcoin than ordinary investors so that they can be able to manipulate the market since they tried their best to get control over Bitcoin and it looks impossible for them.

It is also good because it will gives us confidence to keep holding our Bitcoin, the only mistake we can do now is not to invest in Bitcoin now or letter, or failing to use the DCA method to accumulate as much as possible because time is coming when it will be too expensive to buy, only long term investors will benefit from Bitcoin.

[Renampun]

I don't think that the entry of institutions into Bitcoin will improve the infrastructure, it will only make Bitcoin more regulated and further centralise it as a speculative asset, rather than its original purpose as a digital currency. however, since Bitcoin is a free market where anyone can enter, there is nothing to prevent these institutions from entering the market and accumulating Bitcoin. but what is clear is that in the long run, the entry of institutions into the Bitcoin market does not provide any significant benefits.

[Porfirii]

But we can currently see, many banks and institutions have invested a part of their money in Bitcoin or ETFs. It would be better if many people owned Bitcoin, but that could still happen. At the moment, it is perhaps a time that Bitcoin is used by the big players and people are gaining more confidence in it, so that they in the future will own Bitcoins and hold them in their own wallets.

I see it neutrally, because on the one hand, all this is changing the perception of Bitcoin that we had years ago, when it was only used to buy drugs on the deep web and things like that. Would it be ideal for more people to use P2P? Yes, but I see institutional adoption as a lesser evil.

I also see it as a lesser evil, if we compare it with other risks it has faced in the past and those that it will have to face in the future (quantum computing; political and regulatory changes,...). However, I still find it very worrying. If big funds like BlackRock or powerful governments like the one of the US can account for a significant percentage of the circulating supply, the danger of market manipulation is not only real, but likely. Very far from the ideals on which Bitcoin was presumably founded.

If we read the Bitcoin whitepaper, it is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system without a third party (without banks).

Yes, it has that characteristic, but sometimes an invention changes from what the original creator intended. The drug Viagra, for example, was developed to treat angina pectoris, but ended up being successful in treating erectile dysfunction.

I see that you are very informed on the subject D P D

[Danica22]

I don't think that the entry of institutions into Bitcoin will improve the infrastructure, it will only make Bitcoin more regulated and further centralise it as a speculative asset, rather than its original purpose as a digital currency. however, since Bitcoin is a free market where anyone can enter, there is nothing to prevent these institutions from entering the market and accumulating Bitcoin. but what is clear is that in the long run, the entry of institutions into the Bitcoin market does not provide any significant benefits.

I agree with you that the entry of institutions into Bitcoin could make it more centralized. But I don't think that has anything to do with whether bitcoin is used for its original purpose or not. Because before the bitcoin ETF was approved, it was never used for its original purpose. Early investors, early adopters and all of us used it as a speculative asset to get rich before institutions got involved.

As of now, the inflow of money into bitcoin through ETFs is $160 billion, equivalent to 1.533 million BTC. Meanwhile, there are about 172 public companies investing in bitcoin and the amount of money they poured into the market is estimated at more than 100 billion dollars. Don't these have any positive effects on the market? Are you kidding me?

[Dunamisx]

Institutional adoption can never mean harm on Bitcoin, instead increase more efficacy on how it has been pictured by other industries to hasten up with their own decisions on bitcoin, I like the idea that was part of why it was created, for everyone to benefit and there's no specific targets with whom to use it and not, bitcoin is for everyone's growth and the more they adopted the better it becomes more widely accepted and applicable for everyone.