Bullish: 'Vast Majority' of Institutions Will Own Crypto by 2026: Fidelity

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Their intention to intervene would be futile. However powerful a government may be, it simply cannot take control of Bitcoin's supply distribution.

It wouldn't take much power; it would just take a lot of money.  If a large government wanted to buy up all the bitcoin in circulation, it probably could (though why they'd do that is beyond me).  A consortium of governments interested in doing the same thing would have no problem, since they'd have pooled their funds.  That isn't going to happen, however, nor have I ever heard that any government was even thinking about thinking about it, if you know what I mean.

But as you said, much more damage can be done with legislation, so that's where the danger really lies.  That US infrastructure bill is one of the pieces of proposed legislation that has a lot of bitcoiners worried (and for good reason, IMO).  It wouldn't deter big companies from owning crypto, because they have compliance departments to make sure all the rules are followed--but for the little guy who's into crypto it could be devastating.  Hopefully some members of this forum in the US are contacting their senators to protest.  I know I did.

[1714949589]

1714949589

[lixer]

If anyone still has doubts about whether it is worth buying and waiting at least until the next cycle, take a look at what a new survey from Fidelity Digital Assets says.

According to the survey, 70% of institutional investors intend to buy or invest in digital assets in the near future, with over 90% of them planning to do so by 2026.

We have seen entrepreneurs who were skeptical of Bitcoin years ago change their minds in the last year. If what the survey says comes true, and it looks like it will, it won't even be necessary to own a whole Bitcoin to achieve a certain degree of wealth.

Surely the $30K we have seen recently will never be seen again.

I am always telling people this! It’s not over, yet. Though the price we have now might seem like it’s really too much, but this will be small compared to what we are going to see in the future, because by then there is going to be lots of institutional investors who will invest huge amount of money. That’s going to move up the price and those who don’t invest now wouldn’t be happy about that.

2026 is five years from now, and before then I believe we are going to see another halving take place, and it will shorten the rate of supply and since there will be much demand coming in at that time, this will pump the price. With the way I am seeing things now, I think anywhere around $30,000 is the least price we will ever see from now.

[Darker45]

Their intention to intervene would be futile. However powerful a government may be, it simply cannot take control of Bitcoin's supply distribution.

It wouldn't take much power; it would just take a lot of money.  If a large government wanted to buy up all the bitcoin in circulation, it probably could (though why they'd do that is beyond me).

Well, I respectfully disagree, at least on couple of reasons.

First, it is not just about the money. It is most likely that even if the money is indeed available, the Bitcoin isn't. The last time I read the news, the available Bitcoin on all exchanges are only limited to a little more than 2 million BTC. That's just at least 10% of all the Bitcoin in circulation. There are of course other ways to acquire Bitcoin outside the exchanges, but they're far more limited. Unless the government would force every individual and institutional hodler to give up their Bitcoin, it cannot lay its hands on all the Bitcoin in circulation. But since Bitcoin is seizure-proof to a certain extent, I doubt it will happen.

Second, Bitcoin's market cap is almost a trillion USD. That's a huge amount not even the richest of countries could afford. That's even higher than the GDP of almost a hundred countries. Even if it is just half a trillion USD, supposing a country is really bent on acquiring majority of the Bitcoin in circulation, it simply couldn't afford it.

All in all, I'm still convinced that not even the most powerful country could intervene in the supply distribution of Bitcoin.

[cabron]

Their intention to intervene would be futile. However powerful a government may be, it simply cannot take control of Bitcoin's supply distribution.

It wouldn't take much power; it would just take a lot of money.  If a large government wanted to buy up all the bitcoin in circulation, it probably could (though why they'd do that is beyond me).

Well, I respectfully disagree, at least on couple of reasons.

First, it is not just about the money. It is most likely that even if the money is indeed available, the Bitcoin isn't. The last time I read the news, the available Bitcoin on all exchanges are only limited to a little more than 2 million BTC. That's just at least 10% of all the Bitcoin in circulation. There are of course other ways to acquire Bitcoin outside the exchanges, but they're far more limited. Unless the government would force every individual and institutional hodler to give up their Bitcoin, it cannot lay its hands on all the Bitcoin in circulation. But since Bitcoin is seizure-proof to a certain extent, I doubt it will happen.

Second, Bitcoin's market cap is almost a trillion USD. That's a huge amount not even the richest of countries could afford. That's even higher than the GDP of almost a hundred countries. Even if it is just half a trillion USD, supposing a country is really bent on acquiring majority of the Bitcoin in circulation, it simply couldn't afford it.

All in all, I'm still convinced that not even the most powerful country could intervene in the supply distribution of Bitcoin.

Regulating BTC mining to the environmentally friendly is a kind of intervention to Bitcoin which if the government is not going to be successful in gulping the circulating supply, they are going to take it gradually thru regulating mining farms to comply.  Elon initiated it with his proposal about it and it could become a standard which the Chinese had also comply by sending away miners. It's going to be difficult for them to execute all these.

[Darker45]

Their intention to intervene would be futile. However powerful a government may be, it simply cannot take control of Bitcoin's supply distribution.

It wouldn't take much power; it would just take a lot of money.  If a large government wanted to buy up all the bitcoin in circulation, it probably could (though why they'd do that is beyond me).

Well, I respectfully disagree, at least on couple of reasons.

First, it is not just about the money. It is most likely that even if the money is indeed available, the Bitcoin isn't. The last time I read the news, the available Bitcoin on all exchanges are only limited to a little more than 2 million BTC. That's just at least 10% of all the Bitcoin in circulation. There are of course other ways to acquire Bitcoin outside the exchanges, but they're far more limited. Unless the government would force every individual and institutional hodler to give up their Bitcoin, it cannot lay its hands on all the Bitcoin in circulation. But since Bitcoin is seizure-proof to a certain extent, I doubt it will happen.

Second, Bitcoin's market cap is almost a trillion USD. That's a huge amount not even the richest of countries could afford. That's even higher than the GDP of almost a hundred countries. Even if it is just half a trillion USD, supposing a country is really bent on acquiring majority of the Bitcoin in circulation, it simply couldn't afford it.

All in all, I'm still convinced that not even the most powerful country could intervene in the supply distribution of Bitcoin.

Regulating BTC mining to the environmentally friendly is a kind of intervention to Bitcoin which if the government is not going to be successful in gulping the circulating supply, they are going to take it gradually thru regulating mining farms to comply.  Elon initiated it with his proposal about it and it could become a standard which the Chinese had also comply by sending away miners. It's going to be difficult for them to execute all these.

That's a mild intervention which does not amount to taking over Bitcoin or its supply. I guess Bitcoin miners could easily comply with it if ever it becomes a policy that Bitcoin mining would only be allowed under the condition that it uses renewable energy sources. That's less of a threat. Governments couldn't bring down Bitcoin nor manipulate its price that way.

Anyway, does Elon have a proposal with which China complied by sending away miners? If I'm not mistaken, many of those miners were using hydroelectric energy. That they were asked to leave China wasn't environmentally-related.

[cabron]

Their intention to intervene would be futile. However powerful a government may be, it simply cannot take control of Bitcoin's supply distribution.

It wouldn't take much power; it would just take a lot of money.  If a large government wanted to buy up all the bitcoin in circulation, it probably could (though why they'd do that is beyond me).

Well, I respectfully disagree, at least on couple of reasons.

First, it is not just about the money. It is most likely that even if the money is indeed available, the Bitcoin isn't. The last time I read the news, the available Bitcoin on all exchanges are only limited to a little more than 2 million BTC. That's just at least 10% of all the Bitcoin in circulation. There are of course other ways to acquire Bitcoin outside the exchanges, but they're far more limited. Unless the government would force every individual and institutional hodler to give up their Bitcoin, it cannot lay its hands on all the Bitcoin in circulation. But since Bitcoin is seizure-proof to a certain extent, I doubt it will happen.

Second, Bitcoin's market cap is almost a trillion USD. That's a huge amount not even the richest of countries could afford. That's even higher than the GDP of almost a hundred countries. Even if it is just half a trillion USD, supposing a country is really bent on acquiring majority of the Bitcoin in circulation, it simply couldn't afford it.

All in all, I'm still convinced that not even the most powerful country could intervene in the supply distribution of Bitcoin.

Regulating BTC mining to the environmentally friendly is a kind of intervention to Bitcoin which if the government is not going to be successful in gulping the circulating supply, they are going to take it gradually thru regulating mining farms to comply.  Elon initiated it with his proposal about it and it could become a standard which the Chinese had also comply by sending away miners. It's going to be difficult for them to execute all these.

That's a mild intervention which does not amount to taking over Bitcoin or its supply. I guess Bitcoin miners could easily comply with it if ever it becomes a policy that Bitcoin mining would only be allowed under the condition that it uses renewable energy sources. That's less of a threat. Governments couldn't bring down Bitcoin nor manipulate its price that way.

Anyway, does Elon have a proposal with which China complied by sending away miners? If I'm not mistaken, many of those miners were using hydroelectric energy. That they were asked to leave China wasn't environmentally-related.

It's not going to be mild if they make it a law that treats miners as brokers just as being said in the infrastructure bill. If the senators didn't object to the bill, the law will be able to make them criminals and it's not even because they are not environment friendly.

Elon is just part of it but didn't propose to China.  This is just in the US but if successfully made law, US can force everyone to use electric cars only because of this law. Cars all over the world use gasoline. US can also make it look with media that extracting crude oil is also not environment friendly and illegal.  

Aramco, the largest oil company even responded that they will use their oil to mine BTC to free themselves out of this impending threat.

[wxa7115]

Yes I believe this but there will be hard challenges, government will have to keep putting ban on crypto because it's really a threat to their CBDC honestly, china made the first move and I expect other countries to follow, it seems the gov won't like the insane attention that crypto is getting over CBDC but we wil see how this ends

It is kind of late for that now that institutional investors have finally come to the market, also bitcoin is playing to the advantage of the US, after all with all the money they printed the inflation should be much higher but this is not the case because a great deal of that money was absorbed by this market.

What they are going to try to do is to regulate it and try to make this market to bend to their will and I think they are confident they are going to do it, however I do not think they will be able to accomplish it and when thy realize this that will be the moment an outright ban could come, but at that time people will simply not care and will keep using their bitcoin despite the disapproval from some governments.

[lixer]

If anyone still has doubts about whether it is worth buying and waiting at least until the next cycle, take a look at what a new survey from Fidelity Digital Assets says.

According to the survey, 70% of institutional investors intend to buy or invest in digital assets in the near future, with over 90% of them planning to do so by 2026.

We have seen entrepreneurs who were skeptical of Bitcoin years ago change their minds in the last year. If what the survey says comes true, and it looks like it will, it won't even be necessary to own a whole Bitcoin to achieve a certain degree of wealth.

Surely the $30K we have seen recently will never be seen again.

Even without being told I have already believed that the thirty thousand dollars we saw this year is likely to be the least that the market would ever go again and it’s going to continue from their to be going up and won’t go down below that range. And the next thing I do know is that institutional investors are not going to stop coming, there are going to be so many of them coming all the time, we haven’t seen the end of the market growth, there is still a lot more to come and I can’t wait for that to happen. That’s why we have now to do whatever we want to do and wait for that time to come.

[jaysabi]

If anyone still has doubts about whether it is worth buying and waiting at least until the next cycle, take a look at what a new survey from Fidelity Digital Assets says.

According to the survey, 70% of institutional investors intend to buy or invest in digital assets in the near future, with over 90% of them planning to do so by 2026.

We have seen entrepreneurs who were skeptical of Bitcoin years ago change their minds in the last year. If what the survey says comes true, and it looks like it will, it won't even be necessary to own a whole Bitcoin to achieve a certain degree of wealth.

Surely the $30K we have seen recently will never be seen again.

Even without being told I have already believed that the thirty thousand dollars we saw this year is likely to be the least that the market would ever go again and it’s going to continue from their to be going up and won’t go down below that range. And the next thing I do know is that institutional investors are not going to stop coming, there are going to be so many of them coming all the time, we haven’t seen the end of the market growth, there is still a lot more to come and I can’t wait for that to happen. That’s why we have now to do whatever we want to do and wait for that time to come.

Just as everyone who has ever predicted a top has been wrong, likely is everyone wrong who ever predicts the "last" time we see a certain low.  The history of Bitcoin has always been one of extreme volatility, where peaks and valleys are revisisted with regularity.  Last time it was at $60k there were also people saying it'll never go below $40k again, and they were wrong, just like you're likely to be wrong.  Forever is a long time.  I would bet that we see $30k again if the time horizon is "forever."