How will institutional investors impact Bitcoin?

[Isuru_]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

[Dunamisx]

Since bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency, you can make every effort to have this done from your side if possible, but be rest assured that bitcoin is an independent digital currency and the system it work with is the blockchain technology and everything about bitcoin is in it diverse ability and potentials to always have a market value which is the driving force for it demands, there are opportunities that come with bitcoin adoption which fiat cannot give, this will also be an additional means why bitcoin is the mainstream of digital currency in cryptocurrency and how the whole of it operate with the use of blockchain, as for the the institutional investors, they can help with nothing than themselves in this.

[Odohu]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

This is very correct. Many people are scared of Bitcoin because of volatility... their fears is justified. By the time we have institutional investors getting heavily invested in Bitcoin, the liquidity will be huge such that it becomes difficult for few buys or dumps to drastically cause price fluctuations. For a coin with low liquidity, a single buy or sell of less than $1000 can alter the price significantly and this is not healthy.

So, just like you have already stated, institutional investors is good for Bitcoin and until we have more of it, mainstream adoption of Bitcoin and Bitcoin becoming a legal tender in many jurisdictions, will continue to linger.

[bitmover]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Institutional investors are already here, you may like it or not.

They are basically looking for long term investments and thinking in bitcoin like a digital gold, a commodity.

I don't think that  is bad, neither that it wasn't predicted long ago

Hal Finney mentioned banks coming to bitcoin long ago, acting as a second layer

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

[Plaguedeath]

Stability and liquidity? we don't need that, the volatility in Bitcoin price is the reason why most people interested to invest in Bitcoin. As for liquidity, those institutional investors only trade in centralized exchanges, the liquidity in CEX is already very high and you don't need to wait the buyer or sell.

We need a liquidity in decentralized exchange or no KYC P2P, but I already know they will not trade here due to so called fighting against anti money laundering.

[hyudien]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Bitcoin is not crypto.

When large and small institutions are interested in investing in Bitcoin, the impact can be significant. Because the level of institutional trust means that the money they put in has agreed on the future of Bitcoin and is confident that it will provide profits in the future. A class of companies will not be careless in investing their money, so when they choose Bitcoin it means they have done a fairly in-depth review.

Try to set aside the volatility. Regardless of the level of volatility, I think large investors already know the risks of playing or investing in assets with high volatility. So I think the institutional view of Bitcoin as an asset with a limited supply will decrease in value and the level of scarcity will drive the price higher. Gold can be added and never ends, Fiat can be printed but Bitcoin cannot be duplicated in any way. That is the strong reason why institutions are now starting to pay attention to Bitcoin as a viable hedge asset.

[mk4]

Stability and liquidity? we don't need that, the volatility in Bitcoin price is the reason why most people interested to invest in Bitcoin.

If bitcoin actually ends up achieving mass adoption, then gold-levels of stability(or even more stable, if bitcoin becomes far bigger than gold) is going to be inevitable. Bitcoin will be a boring asset, and that's a good thing.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

This is very correct.

It is only partially correct. Remember when Tesla sold 75% of its bitcoins and the market reacted downwards. The market is not that mature yet. If tomorrow a couple of major companies like Apple and Amazon announce that they are buying bitcoin and will accept them for payment, the price doubles in a week. And vice versa. If Saylor for example says it changes its mind and starts selling bitcoins we will be at levels below $20,000 in a few days.

If bitcoin actually ends up achieving mass adoption, then gold-levels of stability(or even more stable, if bitcoin becomes far bigger than gold) is going to be inevitable. Bitcoin will be a boring asset, and that's a good thing.

Yes, but that is a long way off.

[Odohu]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

This is very correct.

It is only partially correct. Remember when Tesla sold 75% of its bitcoins and the market reacted downwards. The market is not that mature yet. If tomorrow a couple of major companies like Apple and Amazon announce that they are buying bitcoin and will accept them for payment, the price doubles in a week. And vice versa. If Saylor for example says it changes its mind and starts selling bitcoins we will be at levels below $20,000 in a few days.

We might actually be saying the same thing as I do not notice any difference between your narration and examples from mine. The involvement of institutional investors will bring some form of stability and liquidity in a way that one person selling will not have devastating impact on the price like we notice in the case of Tesla.

The more the institutional cashflow Bitcoin enjoys, the less the chances of price fluctuations and market manipulation. 

[livingfree]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

You are likely late in the party about that news that they've been here since the 2021 bull run or even earlier. These institutions are the reasons when there's a bad news, they're the ones to quickly spread it through FUD that they say.

Although they can really help to legalize Bitcoin into a country but there's no need for that. I know that there's a big impact for the adoption and price of it but it's just going to break what the purpose that it's been serving for the long time and that's about decentralization.

The very impact that they can give to people is about introducing it. Most people don't want to believe anymore with such magic internet money as they say because of the proliferation of internet scams, so that's how they'll get in.

[Nrcewker]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Who wants Bitcoins to become mainstream? We all are happy with the current status of bitcoins. We know how valuable Bitcoins are and we know how to take maximum profits from it. Bitcoins are limited in number and hence very rare. So we don’t want it to become mainstream or become legalised. We will just accumulate the coins and when the price goes up we will sell in very high price.

[dzungmobile]

Big capital in, big capital out.
Big positive news, big negative news.

They are what you will get from institutional investors, two sides of a coin but if you manage your capital well like don't use all money for investment, you will feel less negative impacts from institutional investors. By that you can survive through most hardest bearish market time and can see light at the end of each bear market cycle to harvest profit.

[Lorence.xD]

Stability and liquidity? we don't need that, the volatility in Bitcoin price is the reason why most people interested to invest in Bitcoin.

If bitcoin actually ends up achieving mass adoption, then gold-levels of stability(or even more stable, if bitcoin becomes far bigger than gold) is going to be inevitable. Bitcoin will be a boring asset, and that's a good thing.

Exactly, especially if most of the accumulation were hodl and having a diamond hands. When that time happens, it would be hard for most of the people to have short term investment to Bitcoin since the market is stable and has less volatility. It might be a good thing as it could be a used digital currency worldwide but the investors and the traders wouldn't be happy with this one since volatility is one of the factor for them to have profits as they take advantage to it. But for sure mass adoption to Bitcoin would literally took years cause despite the technology and mass media, there's still few people acknowledging the potential and benefits of Bitcoin.

[so98nn]

That fact is already known however what’s making us worried is the way they are operating their businesses. With ever growing restrictions from the governing bodies they are enforcing users to fill up KYC, create more authentication through banking process and it’s pretty much turning into a decentralised bug. Imagine how they started and where they are leading themselves. Currently institutional investment is nothing but a brokerage between a bank and a customer. That’s how I have started to look at them. Are they holding enough to create sustainable ecosystem for bitcoin? May be not but they do have some influence on the resistance for sure. Right now we have no idea from what side they are working but they are going to have Double role in the entire bitcoin-centralisation phenomenon in the future. Mark this as we move further.

[kryptqnick]

I think we've seen that institutional investors can pump the price and I suppose I agree that they can help make Bitcoin a more reputable investment, but that doesn't mean that they bring stability. Musk invested billions into Bitcoin, which drove the price up, but then pulled out those billions just as easily, which has the opposite effect. So in terms of stability, I don't think they make a difference. I also don't think that we need institutional investors for Bitcoin to grow, as there's plenty of regular people who aren't involved but can potentially get involved. I don't mind the big guys, but I don't want to overestimate their importance.

[flyingcarpet]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Many individuals and institutions are investing in areas where institutional investors are investing. This means that the number of investors is increasing, which is positive for Bitcoin. To invest in Bitcoin, some investors follow the institutions and invest with them. This means that many non-institutional investors brought in by institutions are also investing in Bitcoin.

The more people invest in Bitcoin, the more people it will reach. The more users or investors there are, the more benefit there will be for the spread of Bitcoin. So in short, I would call it a win-win situation.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Institution investors will bring centralization to the industry, institutional investors would want their money to be protected since they'll be coming in with a large sum of money then regular investors so they'll want the market to be regulated. The institutional investors have power and connection so they'll use that to draw the attention of lawmakers to the market. Their involvement in the market will bring about more mainstream adoption and popularity but it'll come at the cost of decentralization of the industry. They'll want to take control of the market so they can manipulate it as they do to other markets that they're fully Involved in.

Who wants Bitcoins to become mainstream? We all are happy with the current status of bitcoins. We know how valuable Bitcoins are and we know how to take maximum profits from it. Bitcoins are limited in number and hence very rare. So we don’t want it to become mainstream or become legalised. We will just accumulate the coins and when the price goes up we will sell in very high price.

That's not what we want, maybe that's what you want but the industry want Bitcoin to get more global adoption by going mainstream, if we're talking about profit we'll make more when Bitcoin gets more popular because that'll exposed the currency to more investors and they'll invest thereby increasing the value of Bitcoin and we (the early investors that bought Bitcoin and hodl) get more profits. More global adoption does us more good in everyway because we get to get more opportunities to not only Invest in Bitcoin but spend our wealth globally without having to convert it first to fiats. When Bitcoin get globally accepted, you can use your Bitcoin more frequently than how you can use it now because there'll no limitations.

[famososMuertos]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ?  

That assertion at least has a confirmation, in terms of the Txs. But institutional investors are like the possibility of double spending, if you understand my metaphor, I hope so.

It is sad to think that real adoption,the people,  which should be massively accessing the "right" without conditions, is not aware of the economic event we are experiencing, and those user who know bitcoin; "praying" (not all, but a large majority ) so that the institutions "impose themselves."

[lombok]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

Institution investors will bring centralization to the industry, institutional investors would want their money to be protected since they'll be coming in with a large sum of money then regular investors so they'll want the market to be regulated. The institutional investors have power and connection so they'll use that to draw the attention of lawmakers to the market. Their involvement in the market will bring about more mainstream adoption and popularity but it'll come at the cost of decentralization of the industry. They'll want to take control of the market so they can manipulate it as they do to other markets that they're fully Involved in.

So would Bitcoin be a decentralized design at the beginning and a centralized design at the end if the direction is as you imply?

If that's the case, maybe El Salvador will be a lucky country because they have started collecting Bitcoin now. And if they are able to have 30 percent of the total Bitcoin supply then they can monopolize it.

[hatshepsut93]

Institutional investors can bring stability and liquidity to the Bitcoin ecosystem. They can also help to legitimize Bitcoin and make it more mainstream.what you think about this as a crypto guy ? 

How would they bring stability? The main reason if instability is that there is no approximation of how much Bitcoin should really be worth. So when it goes up or down by 10-20%, the market doesn't know if it's a good opportunity to buy/sell, or if the movement was justified. If institutions merely hold Bitcoin and don't actively trade it in a way that would stabilize the price, then they would have no effect. But they might as well be destabilizing Bitcoin by amplifying the existing price movements.