A Community With No Libra, Bakkt, ETFs and Institutions

[micalith]

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.

[Jating]

I understand your point, we really wanted a decentralised system, in which bitcoin did provide in the beginning. However, as time evolved, specially when the price started to run at the rate of $0.1 to $100 to $10k to the eventual $19k in 2017, the ball game has change. It now become an asset, the best speculative asset that we never seen before, better than gold or even precious metal.

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.

So who is to blame with this kind of evolution?

[micalith]

I understand your point, we really wanted a decentralised system, in which bitcoin did provide in the beginning. However, as time evolved, specially when the price started to run at the rate of $0.1 to $100 to $10k to the eventual $19k in 2017, the ball game has change. It now become an asset, the best speculative asset that we never seen before, better than gold or even precious metal.

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.

So who is to blame with this kind of evolution?

The way that we are going, I don't like it. It is the opposite of what Satoshi Nakamoto wants. If it is about the price, then maybe we should need a decrease for the price which seems unlikely. I think we need a more solid community and more decentralized platform, exchanges etc. Or we may lose our coins because people may prefer the other centralized ones.

[ChrisPop]

I put very low emphasis on Libra. It is just a centralized, stable coin, backed by garbage fiat currencies. Bakkt and ETFs are good for fundamental value and for building the financial infrastructure for people to invest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Of course that ideally we need a decentralized exchange, not a centralized one, but in order to gain mass adoption of BTC people need to trust the it & unfortunately the majority of population need to see some kind of regulation behind a currency to put their hard-earned money in it. Or.. if I think deeper.. maybe we should change this mentality.

[bittraffic]

The government will always be centralize wherever we are, I don't think Satoshi has it it mine that the government will be tamed and will instead be controlled by entity.
BTC will always be decentralized even with the Libra launched, Bakkt and there is an approved ETF. Will BTC stop being decentralized if there is libra or ETF? I suppose not. 

[DooMAD]

It's a nice idea, but it seems like when most people think about how to improve money, they simply conclude "have more of it" and get into the speculation side of it.  The problem is greed.  Only a small number of people recognise the inherent flaws with traditional money and genuinely want to fix some of those problems.  We'll just have to pin our hopes on future generations being smarter.

[dothebeats]

People have learned to know that bitcoin is a useful tool for profit-making, and have since abandoned bitcoin's primary ethos of being decentralized and away from financial institutions and governmental controls. It's as if we chose to live in a compromise for the sake of having to keep something growing in our wallet while opposing the government's control. But yeah, even if we don't have the aforementioned institutions in the ecosystem, bitcoin would still grow into where it is right now, just not at the rate that we reached everything currently.

[lionheart78]

I understand your point, we really wanted a decentralised system, in which bitcoin did provide in the beginning. However, as time evolved, specially when the price started to run at the rate of $0.1 to $100 to $10k to the eventual $19k in 2017, the ball game has change. It now become an asset, the best speculative asset that we never seen before, better than gold or even precious metal.

Businessman and institution  always wanted to venture trending stuff.  We are in a free world govern by centralized government, so as long as these institution had their permit, they can always participate in any kind of business stuff to take advantage of whatever their target is, and this time it is Bitcoin.  Besides there is no rule on the code of Bitcoin that forbid anyone from the government to participate or institution to take advantage of its popularity and technology.

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.

So who is to blame with this kind of evolution?

No one, it is one of the path of Bitcoin, it is a natural occurrence, a product of cause and effect.

[bitmover]

Libra has nothing to do with bitcoin.

Bakk and ETF are players that wants to join the ecosystem. Who should decide who may or may not buy bitcoin? Decentralization means that no one control. Those players cannot control bitcoin, I see no big issue.

[cr1776]

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.

When people decide to stay in bitcoin for much of the time and only rarely convert a portion to fiat, the goal of mass decentralization will be much closer.  That will only occur when people are confident that they can hold bitcoin and use it to purchase what they need.  The higher the fiat price per bitcoin the better for that to occur.

[tomahawk9]

The only reason a big part of the community cares about mass adoption is because they know it'll bring a massive influx of new users into the market which will eventually help the BTC price skyrocket. Now, we're still far away from actual 'mass adoption', so the only thing that can help the btc price go up to the moon and reach new ATH's is "smart money", you know, capital from the big boys from financial institutions.

There used to be a lot of opposition to this, people didn't want the guys from wall street and the likes to enter the market, but they (bitcoiners and altcoiners) quickly found out that if they want to see their btc/alt stash to grow in value (fiat), they'll need the help of investors, which is why nowadays everyone's waiting for ETFs and Bakkt to finally be the trigger that'll spark a new influx of institutional investors that will eventually pour [tons of] money into the btc ecosystem. Now, Bakkt didn't seem to cause any immediate upward movements in the btc price, but we shouldn't expect smart money to FOMO buy/invest like your typical average joe who sells during the dips and buys during the spikes. I believe we should see the impact of smart money entering the crypto market in the long-term.

Now, Libra, that thing can fuck off!

[bitbunnny]

I put very low emphasis on Libra. It is just a centralized, stable coin, backed by garbage fiat currencies. Bakkt and ETFs are good for fundamental value and for building the financial infrastructure for people to invest in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Of course that ideally we need a decentralized exchange, not a centralized one, but in order to gain mass adoption of BTC people need to trust the it & unfortunately the majority of population need to see some kind of regulation behind a currency to put their hard-earned money in it. Or.. if I think deeper.. maybe we should change this mentality.

Everyone iis crying out for decentralization but like you said we need to think deeper. Things are changing and developing very fast, cryptocurrencies have made a big progress since they first appeared but still majority people don't trust them. I agree that regulation is the way to beter trust and adoption, especially by the businesses. So, yes we need to change the way we look at cryptocurrencies and their role in financial and economic world.

[Leonardo7]

A community without these listed above could have been good but leaving in a world where the government loves power and financial control, it will be very difficult before they will give up their authority to control the financial sector because this give them the power to control the lives of people.

[noormcs5]

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 have to start from somewhere. This will not be like people will come and invest and there we go, a decentralized community.
These centralized institutional will come first, they will invest and help in mass adaption. They and we won't even notice that we will move from centralized to decentralized era. The change will happen slowly and gradually.

[Willitivity]

In as much as Bitcoin was designed to be a decentralised system. But in the long run and from events of the moment, it has become necessary to create a room to accommodate some sort of centralisation in order to achieve that which it is. We need adoption and it's these centralised institution will spearhead it.

[Kakmakr]

The kicker is, we need centralized services like Bakkt and some of these ETFs to push adoption on a institutional level, because that is where the big bucks is. The institutional investors will help to improve Bitcoin's store of value, but not it's currency feature. 

People are normally lazy and they like the convenience of pre-packaged investment tools like ETFs and it also provides a regulated environment where they feel safe. So every piece of the puzzle has it's place.. we should just complete the puzzle. 

[rdluffy]

Easy to idealize, hard to do

You are talking about contradiction, and it's, but there's not we can do
We are fight against centralization of power and money, but everyone have access to BTC, and this included people and companies with centralized ideas
And this included companies who are behing BTC, that have enought power to dictate some behavior on our system

[chaoscoinz]

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.

 I really believe within my heart that Libra would have been thee perfect project (regardless of being centralized) that would help raise a significant amount of awareness towards the block-chain and cryptocurrency in general, helping encourage its mass adoption.
 Facebook is globally recognizable, they have a reach around the planet. If Libra were to have been successfully, I think people would inevitably start checking out other cryptocurrencies, everyone including their granny will have some what of an idea about what cryptocurrency is and how it's used.

[Kyraishi]

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.

I agree, there needs to be a lot more adoption from bigger companies, some good examples would be when Samsung started including crypto hardware in their phones, more of that is needed.

There is going to be adoption by centralised companies and we can't stop that from happening, but most of the world lives in a centralised world and we can't just change that for everyone.

[micalith]

The kicker is, we need centralized services like Bakkt and some of these ETFs to push adoption on a institutional level, because that is where the big bucks is. The institutional investors will help to improve Bitcoin's store of value, but not it's currency feature. 

People are normally lazy and they like the convenience of pre-packaged investment tools like ETFs and it also provides a regulated environment where they feel safe. So every piece of the puzzle has it's place.. we should just complete the puzzle. 

What if we lose the community and the idea of decentralization? Change is hard, when it is about something that most of the people don't know, it is harder. I mean decentralization. When we have etf and libra or something that has regulations, we may lose the community. They may prefer libra or grams instead of bitcoin because these provide regulations etc.