The legacy of BTC is all in our hands.

[betswift]

I believe we don't want the BTC we cherish to become the next playground for government and institutions. I am bringing this to our attention now, just as I did when many people were excited about the positive impact the BTC ETF would have, while I pointed out the negative effects, which seem not to be as important to many people then.

it’s definitely because people are more concerned with the price of bitcoin rising since it’s gone mainstream now probably most people are not concerned with actual privacy that bitcoin brings but moreso about the profit

Even if we would not want institutions to go into BTC - what would we do about it?

BTC is for everybody, and time will show us how it will evolve to fit the next years to come and generations after it.

[tabas]

Even if we would not want institutions to go into BTC - what would we do about it?

BTC is for everybody, and time will show us how it will evolve to fit the next years to come and generations after it.

They will enter no matter what, the institutions are no doubt part of it now and just as we want them to adopt as well, they did it but they're more involved now. While that's true that BTC is for everybody, it has evolved with how it's being accepted by the world. We have to look at the brighter side of it despite that with the institutions involvement in it gives us something bad through its unnecessary rules like the kyc and taxes that should be done through them. The legacy of BTC is already carved and us as investors, we should also make ourselves through hodling.

[macson]

Bitcoin is already somehow a playground for Trump and his policies. Almost every move and announcement that he makes about tariffs and anything that could be pictured to have a negative effect on the market can affect Bitcoin. Then they already have the manipulative power to play with the market.
snip

Bitcoin is just like any other market which can be affected by market sentiment, both positive and negative sentiment --- and market sentiment could be affected by Trump's actions and decisions. But this is only true in the short term, and not always like that because the Bitcoin market is already quite large, so in the long term the movement is more influenced by fundamental factors, such as government and institutional adoption, and people's trust, not solely because of Trump alone.

[Churchillvv]

Snip

The decentralized system of bitcoin that I know was the fact that such decisions of a government is not supposed to have an effect on bitcoin as bitcoin is always concerned with a government but only global tension or crisis but today one decision by the government can change bitcoin price instantly that shows that trump can joke with bitcoin at any time even claiming that last year will be the crypto year seem like it’s a prove that he can do whatever he chooses. Though with the help of the strong community we can beat that impression.

I don't know what it is, but it is either that you have a misconception about the decentralization aspect of Bitcoin and market sentiment (which can be triggered by people's emotions, news, and economic factors that significantly influence buying and selling activities in the market).
Market sentiment has nothing to do with Bitcoin decentralization, and if the government sees it as their advantage in the Bitcoin market, there's nothing we can do but use it for our own benefit.
Having said that, the market sentiment is not only global tension and crisis. Once it's major news, it will impact the market, and it does not mean the decentralized aspect of BTC is affected.

You’re right, there might be misconceptions in what I think about bitcoin decentralized systems but the back when I knew bitcoin tensions globally or market sentiments rarely affect bitcoin price but recently the bitcoin market has become synchronized with everything and it seems like it has lost it’s strength against economic conditions which in the beginning was one strength I saw in bitcoin in terms of speculative asset.

[Hanadawa]

Bitcoin is already somehow a playground for Trump and his policies. Almost every move and announcement that he makes about tariffs and anything that could be pictured to have a negative effect on the market can affect Bitcoin. Then they already have the manipulative power to play with the market.
snip

Bitcoin is just like any other market which can be affected by market sentiment, both positive and negative sentiment --- and market sentiment could be affected by Trump's actions and decisions. But this is only true in the short term, and not always like that because the Bitcoin market is already quite large, so in the long term the movement is more influenced by fundamental factors, such as government and institutional adoption, and people's trust, not solely because of Trump alone.

I believe that not only Bitcoin, but almost all investment instruments, such as stocks and gold, are also affected by Trump and US policies. However, Bitcoin is more volatile because it has been more volatile than other investment instruments from the start. However, as you said, the Trump effect is only short-term and will not affect Bitcoin's price in the long term. And it's not just Trump who can affect Bitcoin. As far as I know, Bitcoin is highly volatile, so when something happens that has a major impact on the economy, the Bitcoin price tends to be affected.

[HustleZ]

We all say thanks to BTC. Bank accounts can be frozen, BTC can't be frozen, it's an excellent hedge, and people don't need to go through KYC to use BTC. But if we never support the idea of self custody, privacy, and don't go for any sort of BTC ETF investment before we know it, the government and institutions will have atleast 71% of BTC in their stack.

I believe we don't want the BTC we cherish to become the next playground for government and institutions. I am bringing this to our attention now, just as I did when many people were excited about the positive impact the BTC ETF would have, while I pointed out the negative effects, which seem not to be as important to many people then.

Do you also believe the legacy of BTC will be determined by the decisions we make now?

Thank you

You're right about promoting self-custody and privacy can help in Bitcoin become less manipulable but I think that governments do not need % of Bitcoin supply to manipulate it. They do it via other things in their control. Them owning ETFs and Exchanges and regulated Custodians gives them Leverage over price discovery.  As long as individuals keep holding keys and treat ETFs for exposure not Ownership then Governments can Influence Bitcoin but not Control It.

As Bitcoin grows in popularity and attracts more people there will be More Players and whales in the market which will ultimately cause the BTC market to be Influenced and Manipulated so it can not be avoided completely unless Bitcoin's popularity Ends. So Bitcoin becoming this "playground" can't be fully avoided as Manipulation and influence from big whales/governments/ institutions comes with the Increase in popularity of an Asset.

[hd49728]

You're right about promoting self-custody and privacy can help in Bitcoin become Stable-er and less manipulable but I think that governments do not need % of Bitcoin supply to manipulate it. They do it via other things in their control. Them owning ETFs and Exchanges and regulated Custodians gives them Leverage over price discovery.  As long as individuals keep holding keys and treat ETFs for exposure not Ownership then Governments can Influence Bitcoin but not Control It.

It's about security, privacy and even anonymity while it's not about stability. When you buy and hold bitcoin, you plan to have a profitable result in the future, not a stable portfolio. Perhaps it is what you wanted to say but you described it in a confusing way, so if you have same opinion, please ignore this part of my reply.

With Bitcoin, it's your private key, it's your bitcoin. It's true from individual investors to institutional investors and if any investor entity does not follow this basic but very vital principle, they have more and higher risk in the future for their portfolios. Nothing to be sure about the future, includes the custodians of their bitcoins. It's their money used to invest in bitcoin, so they need to take care of it by themselves through Bitcoin open-source and non-custodial wallets. That means the best approach is becoming their own Bitcoin custodians and don't rely on any third-party custodians.

Choose your wallets.
Check a wallet.
Securing your wallets.
How to back up a seed phrase.

[john_egbert]

Bitcoin is already somehow a playground for Trump and his policies. Almost every move and announcement that he makes about tariffs and anything that could be pictured to have a negative effect on the market can affect Bitcoin. Then they already have the manipulative power to play with the market.
snip

Bitcoin is just like any other market which can be affected by market sentiment, both positive and negative sentiment --- and market sentiment could be affected by Trump's actions and decisions. But this is only true in the short term, and not always like that because the Bitcoin market is already quite large, so in the long term the movement is more influenced by fundamental factors, such as government and institutional adoption, and people's trust, not solely because of Trump alone.

I believe that not only Bitcoin, but almost all investment instruments, such as stocks and gold, are also affected by Trump and US policies. However, Bitcoin is more volatile because it has been more volatile than other investment instruments from the start. However, as you said, the Trump effect is only short-term and will not affect Bitcoin's price in the long term. And it's not just Trump who can affect Bitcoin. As far as I know, Bitcoin is highly volatile, so when something happens that has a major impact on the economy, the Bitcoin price tends to be affected.

I would rather point out that the stocks, bonds, and so on, is the ocean (in the finance world), and the crypto market is only one wave in that ocean.

When the whole ocean trembles, its parts do it even harder

[N9_Ninja]

I agree with this. Bitcoin itself doesn’t change, but how people use it does. If everyone just hands custody to institutions because it’s “easier”, then the whole point slowly gets lost. Self-custody and personal responsibility were always part of the deal.

[betswift]

I agree with this. Bitcoin itself doesn’t change, but how people use it does. If everyone just hands custody to institutions because it’s “easier”, then the whole point slowly gets lost. Self-custody and personal responsibility were always part of the deal.

It's the job of the people to understand that.

Some want to think less, and have the same advantages as the rest, but it's not like that, especially in the crypto space.

[Maus0728]

Well, as much as noble that idea is and I agree that we all should be going towards the goal of self-custody, it's probably worth noting that not everyone has as much fervor as you have OP, everyone has different levels of passion for bitcoin, some people might still see bitcoin the same as it was back in 2012, I know that it will hurt so much if we let the government and other mainstream financial institutions from getting into bitcoin market but I think that the hurt isn't that much of a big deal because I am pretty sure that no one will ever be able to control bitcoin no matter how much they want to invest into it, the volatility will be there to protect everyone.

[hero_the_bossman]

Well, as much as noble that idea is and I agree that we all should be going towards the goal of self-custody, it's probably worth noting that not everyone has as much fervor as you have OP, everyone has different levels of passion for bitcoin, some people might still see bitcoin the same as it was back in 2012, I know that it will hurt so much if we let the government and other mainstream financial institutions from getting into bitcoin market but I think that the hurt isn't that much of a big deal because I am pretty sure that no one will ever be able to control bitcoin no matter how much they want to invest into it, the volatility will be there to protect everyone.

Boomers will definitely choose to have an experience with crypto via the same old services that would hold all of their coins, in fact, not the people buying / exchanging fiat for them.

Until a big tragedy event strikes, it will be like that.

[Rustam Meraj]

Strategy has already added more than 687,000 BTC, and although we have not yet reached your feared 71 percent, incredible amount of money entering US Spot ETFs is quickly taking coins out of pockets into safe deposit boxes. I this is like vampire attack on vision of Satoshi. By choosing to use ease of ETF instead of private wallet users are in fact giving away their power to middle man, able to be stopped or under mean government control at any time. Unless we start taking own keeping and privacy seriously, we will soon find ourselves making Bitcoin into Gold 2.0 a stuck asset with companies holding keys and people holding only paper promises.
Reality of so-called ease trap is real. Most of people would be happier clicking button on banking app other than dealing with 12 words on metal. However, as exchange stops and new MSCI index removal of Bitcoin company stocks have shown, usage of company paths is risk. I believe that 2026 is year when Sovereign Individual and Institutional Investor will finally split ways. One will own Bitcoin and other will merely be one with tracking number in list.

[nemesis_incarnate]

*snip*
I believe that 2026 is year when Sovereign Individual and Institutional Investor will finally split ways. One will own Bitcoin and other will merely be one with tracking number in list.

One would a ghost of its former self, the other - embracing the true nature of BTC getting outside the curve (or rather just avoiding it, the curve being the centralized services offering BTC services or any crypto services for that matter).

[HustleZ]

You're right about promoting self-custody and privacy can help in Bitcoin become Stable-er and less manipulable but I think that governments do not need % of Bitcoin supply to manipulate it. They do it via other things in their control. Them owning ETFs and Exchanges and regulated Custodians gives them Leverage over price discovery.  As long as individuals keep holding keys and treat ETFs for exposure not Ownership then Governments can Influence Bitcoin but not Control It.

It's about security, privacy and even anonymity while it's not about stability. When you buy and hold bitcoin, you plan to have a profitable result in the future, not a stable portfolio. Perhaps it is what you wanted to say but you described it in a confusing way, so if you have same opinion, please ignore this part of my reply.

Yeah my bad, I just got confused with the Wordings!! Added stable where I didn't want to. Thnks

[bbc.reporter]

We all say thanks to BTC. Bank accounts can be frozen, BTC can't be frozen, it's an excellent hedge, and people don't need to go through KYC to use BTC. But if we never support the idea of self custody, privacy, and don't go for any sort of BTC ETF investment before we know it, the government and institutions will have atleast 71% of BTC in their stack.

I believe we don't want the BTC we cherish to become the next playground for government and institutions. I am bringing this to our attention now, just as I did when many people were excited about the positive impact the BTC ETF would have, while I pointed out the negative effects, which seem not to be as important to many people then.

The solution on avoiding the government and the institutions to have at least 71% of all the bitcoins in their control is what the Grin development team have mentioned in Grin's monetary policy. This is for the coin to have unlimited supply. This will also encourage the coin to become more similar to a medium of exchange instead of a speculative investment very much similar to the behavior of much of bitcoins' buyers.



As an experimental hypothesis, Grin's inflation rate may discourage hoarding early on, improving its distribution. Inflation disincentivizes "whales," who have an inordinate amount of control over the price of an asset, and should act to downplay speculative bubbles and price swings. Early adopters get just as much out of grin as those who adopt later. This argument is discussed at length in Bitcoins are not digital greenbacks, in which Wei Dai himself considers "Bitcoin to have failed with regard to its monetary policy". Grin is aiming for as equal access and utility as possible for all users, now and in the future.

Source https://docs.grin.mw/wiki/extra-documents/monetary-policy/

[goldphysicalbitcoin]

This is an interesting paradox: Governments and institutions are accelerating their embrace of Bitcoin, integrating it into the mainstream economy; at the same time, many fear its decentralization and privacy features will be undermined.
My view: Bitcoin’s core rules have never changed, and there is currently no real sign that governments are trying to directly control the protocol (e.g., altering the 21 million supply cap, enforcing chain-level KYC, or fully controlling mining).
Governments are mostly accepting Bitcoin in response to public demand. If they ever attempt genuine centralized control, community resistance would form rapidly, and Bitcoin would very likely fork — just as the 2017 block size debate led to the BTC/BCH split.
This is the essence of Bitcoin’s decentralization: any forceful attempt to centralize control triggers a fork to defend the original consensus. This resilience is even stronger than gold’s thousands of years of resistance to complete government control.
In one sentence: Bitcoin is not an asset that can be “controlled” — it is an asset that cannot be controlled.