ㅤ

[Symmetrick]

ㅤ

[Beerwizzard]

Just imho, but most of this data means pretty much nothing.

Electricity, automobile, internet etc. adoption are different just because these are different things. They were invented in different time, used for different purposes and have a different value for economy (even now crypto worth almost nothing for global economy while things like electricity were a breakthrough).

I also don't like the comparison of stocks, bonds and crypto. It just feels wrong to compare bonds mc (which is almost a pure money) with stock / crypto mc that change every second.

Internet usage history vs crypto users chart is just funny. This is a comparison of absolutely different things that even existed in different time.

[Poker Player]

That comparison is not the first time I see it, and I hope it is so, that we are now in the adoption of crypto as the world was in the use of the internet back at the end of the last century, so that in about 10 or 15 years virtually everyone has/uses Bitcoin and other cryptos.

I think it's fine to be skeptical with this kind of analysis, which seems to me that fellow Beerwizzard is overly skeptical:

Just imho, but most of this data means pretty much nothing.

Electricity, automobile, internet etc. adoption are different just because these are different things. They were invented in different time, used for different purposes and have a different value for economy (even now crypto worth almost nothing for global economy while things like electricity were a breakthrough).

I also don't like the comparison of stocks, bonds and crypto. It just feels wrong to compare bonds mc (which is almost a pure money) with stock / crypto mc that change every second.

Internet usage history vs crypto users chart is just funny. This is a comparison of absolutely different things that even existed in different time.

To compare is to find similarities and differences, from what you say it seems that nothing can be compared. I do believe that there are similarities between the adoption of internet and the adoption of crypto, another thing is if future forecasts are fulfilled but there are similarities and technologically it is easier for people to adopt crypto than the adoption of the Internet from the end of last century to today, because after all today everyone has a cell phone and can install a wallet. In internet adoption we have gone from slow, computer-only connections to fast 24/7 connections on mobile, computer, tablet, smartwatch, TVs, etc.

[TheNineClub]

Finally an article about something I have been writing about for some time Things have been moving a tad too fast for crypto as of lately. We have this technology that we think is ok (things could always be better) and so we throw it at everything to see if it sticks. People on this forum have been pushing the narrative of mass adoption really strongly in this cycle but there is little change in overall crypto to support that. There needs to be a more drastic change than just a price boost to get any more adoption than we have now. I wouldn't bank on that happening anytime soon and I would argue that the countries that so boldly went full-on into crypto did that earlier than needed.

[Beerwizzard]

To compare is to find similarities and differences, from what you say it seems that nothing can be compared.

Yes. Almost everything from above examples can't be compared since it is different things. They are different at almost everything.

All provided examples ( internet, electricity etc.) were a breakthrough. By using them, companies and individual users became able to face entirely new challenges while crypto market doesn't  provide anything completely new (people already knew how to invest, save money or send transfers) and it is unclear if most people in the world even need it. Crypto and internet have incomparably different scope and impact.

[hugeblack]

According to the latest statistics of the International Monetary Fund, the rate of possession of foreign currencies as assets and reserves represents less than 2.5% globally^[1], and Bitcoin represents a small percentage of these 2.5 globally.

Therefore, if the demand for these currencies increases, the 10 trillion barrier that was for gold will be small for Bitcoin, especially if it succeeds in Earn confidence as a non-sanctionable reserve currency.

Thus, if companies, countries and individuals invest about 1% as a reserve in Bitcoin, 10 trillion market capacity will not be impossible.
It all depends mainly on adoption, and regulations.

[1] https://data.imf.org/?sk=E6A5F467-C14B-4AA8-9F6D-5A09EC4E62A4

[davis196]

Therefore, if the demand for these currencies increases, the 10 trillion barrier that was for gold will be small for Bitcoin, especially if it succeeds in Earn confidence as a non-sanctionable reserve currency.

Let's be more realistic here and forget about some fantasies.
1.Bitcoin will never become a global reserve currency.A global reserve currency is always backed by military force.
First,it was the British pound,when the British empire dominated the world.USA took over the place as the global superpower and the US dollar is the global reserve currency.Bitcoin isn't supported by any global superpower and it never will be.
2.Bitcoin is NOT "non-sanctionable".Bitcoin trading and mining can be banned by any country in the world(or by all big countries altogether). I know that a part of the miners and Bitcoin users will survive such ban,but the BTC price would most likely go back to the 2010-2012 levels of a few dollars per BTC.

[darewaller]

The problem with our slower growth at the start and faster right now is that at the very start it was more about people using it to hide their money movements. Things like silk road, money laundering and all that caused bitcoin to be seen as something dangerous.

I remember a period when I was involved in crypto (this was before 2017 happened) and whenever I tried to join a company and they asked me what I was doing, I said I did crypto trading and they looked at me like I said I was a drug dealer. Nowadays even the biggest company in the world owns some crypto and everyone acts like that is a normal thing and crypto is everywhere around us. It took us a while to get here, but we managed to do it.

[stompix]

Just imho, but most of this data means pretty much nothing.

Electricity, automobile, internet etc. adoption are different just because these are different things. They were invented in different time, used for different purposes and have a different value for economy (even now crypto worth almost nothing for global economy while things like electricity were a breakthrough).

I think there is a bigger problem with automobiles and everything that is physical.

In order to achieve a rate of 50% ownership of cars for example you need time to actually build those, and no manufacturer in the world will create factories cable of making enough cars in a year to cover all the population, it's simply not economically feasible. Same for the internet, first you need a computer, which was not that affordable in the first place then internet itself was pretty pricy in the begging. It takes one block for thousands of poeple to transfer and get their first coin for BTC alone and this does not include custodial wallet transfers, cars are not that easy to make and they do break down and need replacement.

If one should compare crypto adoption it would have to stick to something similar by the current state, which is really hard to find!!!!?

But I do come to the same conclusion as Ratimov, we're still in the very early beginning, I don't believe even those claims of 10-20% of the population actively using crypto at the moment, still a long way to go.

[darkangel11]

This event with Ukraine being destroyed and Russia sanctioned is a good proving ground for bitcoin. Many people won't change their minds about bitcoin unless something hits them in the head like hyperinflation or a government that forbids them to withdraw money from a bank.

But I do come to the same conclusion as Ratimov, we're still in the very early beginning, I don't believe even those claims of 10-20% of the population actively using crypto at the moment, still a long way to go.

It varies much from country to country. In the US the numbers can really be at least 10% but I also don't believe these to be active users, but holders. I know at least 5 people who own cryptocurrencies and I wouldn't call any of them an active user. They have significant investments but they just hold.

[Beerwizzard]

In order to achieve a rate of 50% ownership of cars for example you need time to actually build those, and no manufacturer in the world will create factories cable of making enough cars in a year to cover all the population, it's simply not economically feasible. Same for the internet, first you need a computer, which was not that affordable in the first place then internet itself was pretty pricy in the begging. It takes one block for thousands of poeple to transfer and get their first coin for BTC alone and this does not include custodial wallet transfers, cars are not that easy to make and they do break down and need replacement.

Okay, another example. If you bought a car you can travel large distances. If you bought a computer you can instantly send or receive, make complicated calculations or use various amount of different software. Of course it takes some time to implement changes but with all above mentioned innovations people got something unique. By using internet you can send e-mail to another part of the world or manage a large database. People were unable to do this before the technology is invented but with invention of crypto people got a chance to... keep money or send transactions which was already possible via bank or systems like paypal. It is still unclear for many people if they even need crypto because they are ok with centralized service.

But I do come to the same conclusion as Ratimov, we're still in the very early beginning, I don't believe even those claims of 10-20% of the population actively using crypto at the moment, still a long way to go.

Well, it is not that clear.

Ofc crypto is young but being young helps it to develop much faster. We can already see crypto on traditional exchanges and crypto exchange volumes are at high values. So when can we say that we have passed this early stage?
For some reason many people think that we should have 100% people (at least as a goal) using crypto. Do they need it or we should force them use crypto? It is wrong to think that getting crypto would benefit everyone.

[stompix]

~

Well, it is not that clear.

Ofc crypto is young but being young helps it to develop much faster. We can already see crypto on traditional exchanges and crypto exchange volumes are at high values. So when can we say that we have passed this early stage?

Volume? I find volume as a highly questionable indicator.
Let's not forget who started this fake volume rush in order to gain popularity, OkChina and Huobi. Who worked for OkChina due to his experience in high-frequency trading algorithms at that time? CZ! Who tried to copy that? Everyone!
So, I would take every single volume of data with a grain of salt and divide than by at least an order of magnitude before even considering it.

I always said those 10-20% numbers don't reflect in anything I see in real life, with that many crypto users or owners you would basically run into a crypto owner everywhere, in your block of flats you would have at least 3 families of full owners, in your former high school class the same, at least 1 of your close relative would have to be an owner also, no I don't see it. 200 million crypto owners in India, 30 million in Turkey and you can count business there on coinmap without taking your socks off?

And even if we go by the monetary value, 700 million owners (10% of the population) and 1.8t in market cap despite a ton of those coins being either lost or bough and hold since they were 1/100 of what they are now in value again doesn't really make sense to me.
3.7 million BTC has not moved in a decade, those are 140 billion in market cap that probably never saw more than 10k of value.

5% I could probably accept after a long debate when I'm out of energy to do so, but 10% never. Not now!

[hugeblack]

Bitcoin will never become a global reserve currency.A global reserve currency is always backed by military force.
First,it was the British pound,when the British empire dominated the world.USA took over the place as the global superpower and the US dollar is the global reserve currency.Bitcoin isn't supported by any global superpower and it never will be.

I did not say a global reserve currency and bitcoin will not become it, but rather that countries, companies, institutions, and central banks put 1% of their net worth in bitcoin over the next 20 years.
Currently the rate of possession of foreign currencies as reserve represent less than 3%. If Bitcoin becomes 1% of that number, we will witness real changes, especially if there are real global trade sanctions between the United States and China.

2.Bitcoin is NOT "non-sanctionable".Bitcoin trading and mining can be banned by any country in the world(or by all big countries altogether). I know that a part of the miners and Bitcoin users will survive such ban,but the BTC price would most likely go back to the 2010-2012 levels of a few dollars per BTC.

Banning Bitcoin needs global consensus and it will not happen, take the current scenario when countries decided to ban Russia, some countries are still dealing with it^[1], we still have not got consensus on the climate summit (COP26^[2],) if we reach 10 trillion dollars, banning Bitcoin will not be an easy thing.
Secondly, most of the currencies have been mined and therefore the effect of the ban will be less, which weakens the decentralization of the network.



[1] India to Buy Russian Oil at Discount Amid Ukraine War
[2] COP26: China agrees to ′ambitious′ climate action plan

[wozzek23]

-snip

There was a period where fake volume was a big thing, but I do not think that it is as big as it used to be. Plus even if fake, we can see the ups and downs as well, we could have maybe 2 billion real and 10 billion fake, but when it is 1 billion real 5 billion fake you know it went low, or when it is 4 billion real and 15 billion fake it went up.

So, it doesn't matter how much of it is fake or not, as long as it goes up or down, you know there is an interest to it. The adoption could be a lot more faster than this if we could just use our crypto instead of needing to cash it out, so when that happens you will see volume dropping and yet adoption going up as well.

[usekevin]

The new phase of the crypto adoption was taken place now.The crypto investment was became a important after the war sequence.Most the transaction was now in Ukraine was crypto.The secret was some government,had send the funds to Ukraine in cryptocurrency.The crypto age was just 13 years,but the value of crypto had reached of 60k dollars fro 1k dollars,which is 60 times of initial value. 

[Fortify]

Wells Fargo recently released a report on the future of crypto adoption. Analysts believe that cryptocurrencies are now close to the hyper-adoption phase.


The crypto industry is relatively young and is at the very beginning of its development. And if you look at other disruptive technologies, then cryptocurrencies have not yet reached the point after which there is a phase of explosive widespread adoption. Those who say that it is too late to enter the crypto industry are greatly mistaken. We are still at the very beginning of the journey.

If you look at the share of cryptocurrency capitalization among other assets, you can see that this is a very young industry with a very small (relative to other assets) capitalization:

Crypto adoption in its development resembles Internet adoption. If in the early stages less than 1% of the population used the Internet, now almost 5 billion people use the Internet. Cryptocurrencies are now used by only 3% of the population.


Cryptocurrencies are only 13 years old, and during this time this industry has managed to get close to a capitalization of $3 trillion. Moreover, the bulk of this amount was attracted to the industry over the past 2-3 years. Just like the main crypto adoption, namely the adoption of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment, the surge of p2p trading, the use of cryptocurrencies as financial instruments by large investors and institutions. All this has also happened in these last 2-3 years. I do not know what scale this industry can reach in the next 10-13 years, but I think that it will be several orders of magnitude larger than what we have now.

I think this is a slightly false comparison to all those other examples given. Telephones, cars and the internet all achieved a task that was previously much harder to do. If we're calling the major benefit of crypto being that it is a currency - we already have currencies and we already have very successful payment networks. While the decentralization aspect is a boon for it, the energy usage and costs might still make it much less efficient. It's a great proof of concept so far but I think we're some steps away from figuring out the optimum way it'll work. At present it still feels like the biggest benefit from Bitcoin is the ability to move reasonably large sums of money quickly across borders without adding middlemen who do not add proper value but the efficiency rate needs to increase exponentially to accommodate regular daily transactions on a small scale.

[stompix]

-snip

~
So, it doesn't matter how much of it is fake or not, as long as it goes up or down, you know there is an interest to it. The adoption could be a lot more faster than this if we could just use our crypto instead of needing to cash it out, so when that happens you will see volume dropping and yet adoption going up as well.

Quite the opposite.
It matters a lot how much of it is fake since if 10% of the volume is only real it can be easily manipulated for a far lower sum, if those walls are not made out of 1000BTC but out of 100, it will not take a whale but a pufferfish to brake though with one tiny dump. And no, I sincerely don't get it how you could say there is interest in it even if it goes down, if it goes down poeple are losing rust in it, right? That's why the price goes down.

There was a period where fake volume was a big thing, but I do not think that it is as big as it used to be. Plus even if fake, we can see the ups and downs as well, we could have maybe 2 billion real and 10 billion fake, but when it is 1 billion real 5 billion fake you know it went low, or when it is 4 billion real and 15 billion fake it went up.

A parent of 80% of the volume being fake is still bad, and from the last few flash crashes, I tend to think the figures are much higher than, we've seen dumps of small numbers below a thousand happening in a few minutes and bringing down a market that claims to run billions down by 10-15%. That's not normal and I don't see any reason why would this happen unless the overall majority of trading would be controlled by bots that react in the same way at the same time, and that ain't good either.

The new phase of the crypto adoption was taken place now.The crypto investment was became a important after the war sequence.Most the transaction was now in Ukraine was crypto.

And you have any actual info or facts  to claim that?
At #7 and #8, you have some responses from poeple actually living there and they don't see that happening either.