One could also say the volatility makes people spend. Also entering a time of the year when people spend more anyways.
I disagree.
Think of an institution that is trying to integrate accepting bitcoins into their fundraising / development departments? It competes with other forms of payment that currently require no explanation, are actually more convenient to the vast majority, are approved quicker, and offer consumer protection from fraud.
This institution would, for example, expect $X from development / fundraising a year.
If that $X is now split into $Y+$Z where Y is standard practices and Z is bitcoin, it is CRUCIAL that the $Z is stable, risk is basically unacceptable if someone gives us $Z it has to be $Z when we claim it, or else that is looked upon as waste and not to mention it doesn't meet operational needs.
There are many cases where the volatility doesn't matter, sure, but when you're talking about integrating media campaigns, supporting and maintaining bitcoin there is a cost and a risk associated with doing so that stems from its volatility.
So I don't know about "rapidly approaching critical adoption rate" or what that's really supposed to mean right now... critical implies necessity.
I think people are getting ahead of themselves with senate back-patting "we do a great job so give us new money to fight the mysterious new child rape technology" puff piece. These are similar to the hearings that solved JFK's killing, condemned commies, sold a bogus 9/11 story, the list goes on...
Institutionally, we're talking the large institutions of the world, there is still a lot a government can do to curb adoption of bitcoin, guide it, or funnel it.
Think of any non-profit anywhere that receives tax dollars, aid or federal funding. Think of how easy it would be for the government, considering one of these institutions are under audit microscopes by default, to pull funding or creatively assign funding based on how they're lobbied.
We can toot horns all day long about how its impossible to stop bitcoins, but it is easily possible to curb adoption of them.
Without the cheapness of transaction (fungibility) mattering much yet, the average person doesn't see why they'd convert cash just to risk losses in the timeframe of the conversion, to use bitcoins. That's an eventuality.
But a business that uses that transactional efficiency to offer a higher quality, cheaper product? Nobody will be able to argue with that. Just look at square cell phone credit card swipers? That's what the competition is.
When you're talking about critical adoption, you're talking about businesses leaving money on the table for someone else, losing money, if they don't adopt bitcoin.