Do you think Institutions secretly HODL Bitcoin?

[JohnBitCo]

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

I don't particularly disagree with this point

As it may or may not be true. If anything, let's assume for a moment that it is and institutions as well as companies hide their investments in cryptocurrencies. But then we won't know that, right? Therefore, their well-concealed investments don't mean a thing to us as we would still be dreaming of the times when institutional money would come to market, even though it has likely already been there for quite some time (as per our assumption)

For sure Institutions  keep on holding the bitcoins and crypto at a cheap rate. They have the money to keep on accumulating bitcoin. When they have enough bitcoins, they spread positive news in the market and causes the bitcoin prices to rise. These are the Institutions who take most of the benefits when the price rises.

[deisik]

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

I don't particularly disagree with this point

As it may or may not be true. If anything, let's assume for a moment that it is and institutions as well as companies hide their investments in cryptocurrencies. But then we won't know that, right? Therefore, their well-concealed investments don't mean a thing to us as we would still be dreaming of the times when institutional money would come to market, even though it has likely already been there for quite some time (as per our assumption)

For sure Institutions  keep on holding the bitcoins and crypto at a cheap rate. They have the money to keep on accumulating bitcoin. When they have enough bitcoins, they spread positive news in the market and causes the bitcoin prices to rise. These are the Institutions who take most of the benefits when the price rises

I'm not too sure if they reap quite a lot of benefits yet (let alone profits)

If anything, they should still be deep in red. In case they are in fact involved in cryptocurrency market operations (the euphemism for the buy low and sell high stratagem), they should have been buying all the way down. In other words, it is highly unlikely that they have bought all their bitcoins right at the bottom. So it is definitely not like they "keep on holding the bitcoins and crypto at a cheap rate" (if I got your point right), and if the price rises, it should only diminish their losses (at least until a fundamentally strong bull market sets in)

[BeGoods]

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

I don't particularly disagree with this point

As it may or may not be true. If anything, let's assume for a moment that it is and institutions as well as companies hide their investments in cryptocurrencies. But then we won't know that, right? Therefore, their well-concealed investments don't mean a thing to us as we would still be dreaming of the times when institutional money would come to market, even though it has likely already been there for quite some time (as per our assumption)

Each institution has its own financial audit, so they will not be able to hide the wealth they get from the audit, unless the director of the institution intends to corrupt, they have to work together to hide some of their finances, and save it in bitcoin, that's possible..

[DeathProxy]

Off course many institution are holding bitcoin secretly.  They know well that the future its for blockchain and cryptocurrency and they are stocking it for when it will go mainstream

[deisik]

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

I don't particularly disagree with this point

As it may or may not be true. If anything, let's assume for a moment that it is and institutions as well as companies hide their investments in cryptocurrencies. But then we won't know that, right? Therefore, their well-concealed investments don't mean a thing to us as we would still be dreaming of the times when institutional money would come to market, even though it has likely already been there for quite some time (as per our assumption)

Each institution has its own financial audit, so they will not be able to hide the wealth they get from the audit, unless the director of the institution intends to corrupt, they have to work together to hide some of their finances, and save it in bitcoin, that's possible

I guess there might be workarounds (loopholes or whatever)

But technically, you should not ask me or question my point as this is not what I came up with here. I know that the public institutions (e.g. pension funds and their likes) are allowed only to invest in certain assets, i.e. the classes of assets which are explicitly listed in their investment declaration (or what it is called). Indeed, private institutions are a completely different animal, but then we may never know what they are investing in unless they intentionally make it known to the wider public (read, they want us to believe in something)

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

This is the post (and the poster) which you should focus your attention on

[JayJuanGee]

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

I don't particularly disagree with this point

As it may or may not be true. If anything, let's assume for a moment that it is and institutions as well as companies hide their investments in cryptocurrencies. But then we won't know that, right? Therefore, their well-concealed investments don't mean a thing to us as we would still be dreaming of the times when institutional money would come to market, even though it has likely already been there for quite some time (as per our assumption)

Each institution has its own financial audit, so they will not be able to hide the wealth they get from the audit, unless the director of the institution intends to corrupt, they have to work together to hide some of their finances, and save it in bitcoin, that's possible

I guess there might be workarounds (loopholes or whatever)

But technically, you should not ask me or question my point as this is not what I came up with here. I know that the public institutions (e.g. pension funds and their likes) are allowed only to invest in certain assets, i.e. the classes of assets which are explicitly listed in their investment declaration (or what it is called). Indeed, private institutions are a completely different animal, but then we may never know what they are investing in unless they intentionally make it known to the wider public (read, they want us to believe in something)

I believe there must be lots of ways for institutions and companies to hide it: special purpose vehicles, subsidiaries, offshore accounts and companies, hiring agents, etc

This is the post (and the poster) which you should focus your attention on

I cannot disagree with one of your points deisik that we cannot really have confidence in knowing the degree to which certain institutions might already be investing in bitcoin, and even if there are various degrees of public disclosure requirements of companies, we still might not know.

I, personally, nonetheless would presume that the degree that institutions are acquiring and investing in bitcoin to b relatively low and small. I am basing my speculation on what I understand about institutions, whether publicly held or privately held and I would even consider governmental into the category of possible institutions that engage in varying practices regarding their public openness.

In other words, there are likely some institutions that are secretly acquiring and HODLing bitcoin, but their quantity of held bitcoin remains low and the number of them doing it remains very low too - otherwise we would witness even higher bitcoin prices than we see today.  But in the end, we are engaging in a decent amount of stabbing in the dark regarding our speculation, and seems to be the reason for this thread.

[deisik]

I, personally, nonetheless would presume that the degree that institutions are acquiring and investing in bitcoin to b relatively low and small. I am basing my speculation on what I understand about institutions, whether publicly held or privately held and I would even consider governmental into the category of possible institutions that engage in varying practices regarding their public openness

This is what I think myself actually

There is no reason for big financial institutions to invest in Bitcoin big time this time, either secretly or overtly. Bitcoin, for the time being, is mostly a speculative asset and will likely remain that way in the foreseeable future anyway (even though we all want it to become a store of value, so-called digital gold), therefore the only way big investors are going to make money with Bitcoin is via buying it low and selling it high. But who are they going to sell it to at, say, 1M dollars per coin (as such is going to be the price after the institutional money enters the market) if not too many people are going to buy bitcoins at 5k now?

[vixcious]

I think that financial businesses around the world are thinking of participating in the crypto market. Here, they use very useful blockchain technology and spend very little transaction costs and time. That's what businesses around the world need.
I guess another 5 years, our crypto market will have a lot of real businesses involved and market capitalization will soon surpass $ 2000 billion.

[Best Dreams]

Off course many institution are holding bitcoin secretly.  They know well that the future its for blockchain and cryptocurrency and they are stocking it for when it will go mainstream

I trust it too that institutions are holding crypto currency specially the bitcoin, to make good stack of coins now is perfect time for them as price is not so high, it will be much better for them if they have patience and don’t take sudden step or expect sudden pump of price, it is lifetime saving so I think there are so many institutes who are accepting and holding bitcoins.

[JayJuanGee]

I, personally, nonetheless would presume that the degree that institutions are acquiring and investing in bitcoin to b relatively low and small. I am basing my speculation on what I understand about institutions, whether publicly held or privately held and I would even consider governmental into the category of possible institutions that engage in varying practices regarding their public openness

This is what I think myself actually

There is no reason for big financial institutions to invest in Bitcoin big time this time, either secretly or overtly. Bitcoin, for the time being, is mostly a speculative asset and will likely remain that way in the foreseeable future anyway (even though we all want it to become a store of value, so-called digital gold), therefore the only way big investors are going to make money with Bitcoin is via buying it low and selling it high. But who are they going to sell it to at, say, 1M dollars per coin (as such is going to be the price after the institutional money enters the market) if not too many people are going to buy bitcoins at 5k now?

I don't really disagree with anything that you are saying; however, the way that I frame the situation would seem to come out a bit different.

I don't really agree with assertions that attempt to minimize the importance of bitcoin by pigeon holing bitcoin into a "speculation" category because we are not talking about some shit coin or alt coin, which largely an overwhelming number of altcoins fall exactly into a speculation only category.

The reason that I assign little institutional attention or excitement about bitcoin is because of bitcoin's relative smallness rather than degree to which it is speculative.

In that regard, bitcoin remains only a blip on the radar of a lot of institutions, and even they cannot figure out reasonable institutional tools in order to really manage getting in or out of the asset, even if they were to want to hedge a small or even a mediocre percentage of their investment into bitcoin.  Those custodial tools are coming, but still seem to be relatively slow in the making and the building of confidence of the BIGGER potential players.

Also one of the major ASS propositions of bitcoin remains on the individual level to empower individuals in the retention and the movement of their value, and perhaps only a few BIGGER type institutions are recognizing some kind of concrete value in that kind of power and monetary sovereignty.. which is a BIGASS use case that is already here.. and not speculation. 

Banks, big institutions and governments neither need that level of autonomy over their value that can be gained through bitcoin because they already have such autonomy over the value through traditional institutions that they built around themselves.. those fucks....

Anyhow, the more and more that value increasingly gravitates towards bitcoin, then they are likely NOT going to have much if any choice to put at least some of their value into bitcoin, and later down the road, they will be incentivized to put more and more of their value into bitcoin because the longer bitcoin exists, the more and more value is going to gravitation into it causing a snowballing effect.

[Ahiaba]

I don't think there is any need for any institution to make what ever they hold in crypto currency known to the public and they even hold they will not tell you bro.

[kamilah147]

Due to bitcoin decentralized nature many cooperation and organizations are now optioning for bitcoin and other cryptocurrency because it give the total freedom in doing transaction and on a fast and secured network, compared to what we use to have where there is high level of third party involvement.

no one can know what you are saying to know the price and value alone we cannot know for sure a lot of news is a lot of information and it all depends on our beliefs

[aditasetia123]

Due to bitcoin decentralized nature many cooperation and organizations are now optioning for bitcoin and other cryptocurrency because it give the total freedom in doing transaction and on a fast and secured network, compared to what we use to have where there is high level of third party involvement.

no one can know what you are saying to know the price and value alone we cannot know for sure a lot of news is a lot of information and it all depends on our beliefs

insitution secretly holding bitcoin in their bag.especially for finance institution i am pretty sure they have much bitcoin as investment.much fund manager recognized bitcoin as digital gold.and its be obligation for us to have it.

[1BTC EQUALS 1CAR]

I only have a hunch that some of them do, or they have plans or just monitoring the btc marketplace very closely. But we know that they are have interest in it because they would not waste their time just to give opinion about it over and over again. Just like JP Morgan that always say nasty things about it but eventually made their own coin and who knows if they also accumulated more than enough btc. But I am sure they do and they just doing it secretly.

[Umkar]

There are many wallets with large volumes of Bitcoin, Ethereum and other altcoins. They must belong to someone, and judging by the large number of coins, these could be the wallets of companies and investment funds. Because many people realize that sooner or later Bitcoin will be recognized in many jurisdictions and after that it will more often be used to hold capital, which in turn will increase its price. Naturally, no one wants to miss the opportunity to make a profit.

[deisik]

Also one of the major ASS propositions of bitcoin remains on the individual level to empower individuals in the retention and the movement of their value, and perhaps only a few BIGGER type institutions are recognizing some kind of concrete value in that kind of power and monetary sovereignty.. which is a BIGASS use case that is already here.. and not speculation

Individuals are not the same as big institutions

The latter have to play by the rules set of their respective governments lest they should suffer unfavorable consequences. So it is not so much about institutions, big or otherwise, as about acceptance of crypto by governments. But if there is such acceptance and embrace, will we ever want these big fish sticking around? In fact, I don't think they actually need crypto as they are cool with fiat being backed up by the government. This is not the case with simple people, though, as they are to pay the price for the government shenanigans with fiat money

[JayJuanGee]

Also one of the major ASS propositions of bitcoin remains on the individual level to empower individuals in the retention and the movement of their value, and perhaps only a few BIGGER type institutions are recognizing some kind of concrete value in that kind of power and monetary sovereignty.. which is a BIGASS use case that is already here.. and not speculation

Individuals are not the same as big institutions

The latter have to play by the rules set of their respective governments lest they should suffer unfavorable consequences. So it is not so much about institutions, big or otherwise, as about acceptance of crypto by governments. But if there is such acceptance and embrace, will we ever want these big fish sticking around? In fact, I don't think they actually need crypto as they are cool with fiat being backed up by the government. This is not the case with simple people, though, as they are to pay the price for the government shenanigans with fiat money

I am not sure if we are talking over each other or not.

I was attempting to make a description of the status quo in terms of the reasons why bitcoin advantages regular people rather than institutions, and then you seem to have been making a prescriptive statement out of the subject.

Bitcoin doesn't give any shits about who you are, and you can enter into bitcoin.  Similarly, "we" have no choice about who enters into bitcoin, so if BIG institutions want to come into bitcoin, then they can come into bitcoin.

I was just attempting to assert that many of them neither perceive a benefit to enter into bitcoin at this time, but with the passage of time, they are likely going to perceive various benefits to entering bitcoin and they will enter, whether "we" like, want, appreciate or disapprove their entrance into bitcoin or not.

[deisik]

I was attempting to make a description of the status quo in terms of the reasons why bitcoin advantages regular people rather than institutions, and then you seem to have been making a prescriptive statement out of the subject.

Bitcoin doesn't give any shits about who you are, and you can enter into bitcoin.  Similarly, "we" have no choice about who enters into bitcoin, so if BIG institutions want to come into bitcoin, then they can come into bitcoin.

I was just attempting to assert that many of them neither perceive a benefit to enter into bitcoin at this time, but with the passage of time, they are likely going to perceive various benefits to entering bitcoin and they will enter, whether "we" like, want, appreciate or disapprove their entrance into bitcoin or not

I'm trying to draw a line between simple folks and financial institutions

To put it simple, individuals are mostly not restricted by the government in their "investment policies", so to speak. So even if the government (any government, for that matter) frowns upon Bitcoin's use and possession (up to a point of imposing an explicit ban on crypto), people may not give a fuck about what the government would think ("my give a damn's busted")

But this is certainly not the case with financial institutions even if they come to see a lot of benefits and potential in Bitcoin but their respective government is not so pro-Bitcoin as they might want it to be. Indeed, they could try to change such a rogue government, but this would be a different story

[JayJuanGee]

I was attempting to make a description of the status quo in terms of the reasons why bitcoin advantages regular people rather than institutions, and then you seem to have been making a prescriptive statement out of the subject.

Bitcoin doesn't give any shits about who you are, and you can enter into bitcoin.  Similarly, "we" have no choice about who enters into bitcoin, so if BIG institutions want to come into bitcoin, then they can come into bitcoin.

I was just attempting to assert that many of them neither perceive a benefit to enter into bitcoin at this time, but with the passage of time, they are likely going to perceive various benefits to entering bitcoin and they will enter, whether "we" like, want, appreciate or disapprove their entrance into bitcoin or not

I'm trying to draw a line between simple folks and financial institutions

To put it simple, individuals are mostly not restricted by the government in their "investment policies", so to speak. So even if the government (any government, for that matter) frowns upon Bitcoin's use and possession (up to a point of imposing an explicit ban on crypto), people may not give a fuck about what the government would think ("my give a damn's busted")

But this is certainly not the case with financial institutions even if they come to see a lot of benefits and potential in Bitcoin but their respective government is not so pro-Bitcoin as they might want it to be. Indeed, they could try to change such a rogue government, but this would be a different story

It still seems as if we are continuing to talk past each other a bit because even though I accept that there are both existential differences between governments/institutions and individuals, which causes their accountability to be different.  In that regard, individuals can do almost whatever they want without having to report to anyone or to get approval, and institutions have differing processes.. and yeah, there may be some tensions between governments/institutions and bitcoin, but I don't see how that really matters in terms of the points that I am making.

I don't disagree with your statement that institutions and governments might be hostile or competitive towards bitcoin and attempt to control bitcoin, but in the end,  honey badger will give few if any fucks about that.  They are going to be forced into that situation of first they fight you and later they join you.    

So maybe in the end, you (deisik) and I don't materially disagree, but we are still framing the various matters and adoption dynamics in different ways.  Even though I am agreeing with you to categorize and define institutions and governments in categories different from individuals, I am still suggesting that the very difference of what individuals are and how they interface with governments and institutions will cause them to advantage from bitcoin prior to governments and institutions, and even though there is different timelines in adoption, governments and institutions are going to be more or less forced to come into bitcoin too... but we all may be dead by then, anyhow, even though a progression in the adoption dynamic is going to continue and we are going to be able to witness such progression (the longer we live, the more progression and adoption into bitcoin we are likely to witness).

Anyhow, now I am feeling like I am just repeating myself in various ways.. so I am not sure what points differ between you and me, except maybe different ways of framing the issues and the dynamics and likelihood that we do not really disagree about a lot of the underlying dynamics, motivations or distinctions, but we have differing ways of expressing such..

[Annalise24]

Yes. There are instructions that are holding bitcoin , some are even trading bitcoin using a third party.
I got to know about this from a friend that works for one of such institutions..