Can bitcoin survive without institutional investors

[Trickella]

Over the years, we’ve seen a number of big companies come into the bitcoin space, companies like BlackRock and even some traditional banks Have opt into bitcoin.
With the Bitcoin ETFs and cooperate treasury allocation becoming more common, institutional and companies involvement have grown a lot.
This has raised a question in my mind: If these institutions suddenly decides to leave the market, what effect will it have on Bitcoin.

When bitcoin was first created, for years it survived solely on miners, developers, retail investors, communities, and early adopters . There was no ETF, and no coperate treasuries.

But now, we know that these companies brings in large capital, increased liquidity, market influence , and as much as we try to ignore, they bring potential of centralization of supply.

I do believe that bitcoin can survive without this institutions . If they are to pull out of the market bitcoin will likely still survive, just that the growth may be slow and volatility may temporarily reduce.
This is just my opinion. But I will like to know what you all think, do you think that institutional money is essential for bitcoin long term survival, and does it have a way of threatening the decentralization

[BlackHatCoiner]

This has raised a question in my mind: If these institutions suddenly decides to leave the market, what effect will it have on Bitcoin.

As Donald Trump had once said, "What if anything? What if a bomb drops to our heads right now?". There was once a time when these institutions hadn't joined these markets, yet, may I remind you. And not only had they not joined, but they were systematically spreading propaganda and fear.

The new generation of bitcoiners would not handle the stress and uncertainty of the old generation, and that's why they're naturally the new generation. 

[OmegaStarScream]

Spot ETFs were introduced in 2024. Two years ago. Bitcoin has survived 15 years without ETFs, and I don't see why it wouldn't have continued to survive without it. The same applies for the treasuries.

I also think that we have reached the point of no return. Institutions are not the average user. They don't PANIC sell. They invest for the long term. They don't wake up one day and decide to sell everything, unless of course they're forced to by the shareholders, or by debt.

As for the "centralization of supply" then out of all of the treasuries[1], I don't believe there is much of a threat here. Strategy probably the only one accumulating bitcoin aggressively (3.4% is a lot, no doubt about it) but I don't see them keeping up with that forever.

[1] https://bitcointreasuries.net/

[BitMaxz]

Well, the only reason that I know why the ETF exists is due to security; other people or companies are afraid to enter into the crypto space, and the ETF solved this problem, but it doesn't mean that without this Bitcoin won't survive. If you can review the historical data and history about Bitcoin, you should be able to notice that Bitcoin ETF didn't exist before, but the value rise.
Bitcoin ETF only helps those people who are afraid to hold Bitcoin in their own wallet. I don't see any other reason for this but to only provide security to some investors. So Bitcoin should survive without it.

[Anthony Bill]

As long institutions are not the reason Bitcoin is living to clear doubt from users minds and it will continue to live to attract government and business men and women that Bitcoin can survive without government involve. It is when Bitcoin began to hit some price that made some governments to test Bitcoin investment with little capital and it has make majority of government to start using Bitcoin.

[Zaguru12]

I do believe that bitcoin can survive without this institutions . If they are to pull out of the market bitcoin will likely still survive, just that the growth may be slow and volatility may temporarily reduce.
This is just my opinion. But I will like to know what you all think, do you think that institutional money is essential for bitcoin long term survival, and does it have a way of threatening the decentralization

Bitcoin was there long before without this institutions and it actually handle the early years so well, imagine bitcoin grew all the way from $0 to around $69k as an ATH before ETF was approved and also it was during then that even the government were totally against bitcoin so imagine if bitcoin actually could survive this hurdles then if would survive without this institutions.

The only thing is that without the institutions bitcoin adoption would not be as fast as of recent times because firstly not everyone will actually come to terms with holding their assets themselves and also the government might not have been relaxing some restrictions placed on it.

But as for volatility I don’t think it will reduce without institutions but rather it will be very volatile like we used to have in the early days. It is actually this institutions that even reduce the volatility of market

[uchegod-21]

Bitcoin's core value lies in decentralization and not in institutional involvement. Bitcoin has already existed years before institutions came into the picture. The institutions have no control over the supply of bitcoin, mining and the validation of nodes. They can only influence the price of bitcoin through their buying and selling activities.

The importance of institutional investors too cannot be overlooked, they have played a significant part in building trust and promoting the adoption of bitcoin. They have also played roles in the creating panic in the market. If they exit today, we might just experience a temporary negative price movement which will be followed by an increased volatility.

Apart from this, bitcoin is never going to collapse because institutions left.

[Stalker22]

Surely it can survive over time, but I am not confident that the volatility will decreas.  in fact, quite the opposite!  And please explain to me how removing institutional money from the market would create less volatility, when the liquidity provided by large institutional players in the market typically stabilizes asset prices on average.

And, although the operation of Bitcoin itself doesnt rely on Wall Street or its financial services, if you intend for it to be used as a global reserve currency instead of as niche project or collection, then you will need Wall Street to achieve that goal!

[Z-tight]

But I will like to know what you all think, do you think that institutional money is essential for bitcoin long term survival, and does it have a way of threatening the decentralization

I don't think funds from institutional investors threaten BTC's decentralization. BTC does not have any central authority in control and it does not matter how much funds comes from institutions, they'd not be able to control the network. Denying the influence of institutions in the network would be stupid, but their influence is in the price of BTC. Inflows from institutional investors help to move the price of BTC up, but that is as much as it can do, it does not transcend to control of the network.

[Youngrebel]

It is good you have highlighted all the phases that bitcoin has moved through. Even from what you have said it is clear that it all the transitional stages survived from the sustenance of different sources and streams. This means if one means is not there certainly there's going to be another form and way that bitcoin would survive and move on.
We know that these institutions and organisations give allot of support to the the market but that doesn't mean bitcoin cannot exist without them. Bitcoin would exist and even do very well .

[xbetz.io]

Bitcoin survived 10+ years without institutional money. Institutions accelerate liquidity and price discovery but they are not the foundation. The foundation is: miners, node operators, developers and long-term holders.  If institutions leave, price volatility increases. If the community leaves, Bitcoin dies. Institutions affect valuation. They don’t control existence. Bitcoin’s survival is technical. Its growth is financial.

[lionheart78]

Before these institutional investors flocked in, Bitcoin was already thriving.  So whether Bitcoin survives without institutional investors or not is already answered by its early history.  I believe Bitcoin is fine without these institutional investors. There are lots of investors that are involved with Bitcoin, so even if institutional investors are not involved, Bitcoin can have retail investors, venture capitalists, private equity investors, strategic investors, and more.

It is not the end for Bitcoin if institutional investors shut their doors to Bitcoin.

[Itty Bitty]

The way the white paper was written, it seems the author envisioned the bitcoin network comprised of many many small fishies spread out far and wide, with the goliaths joining around the 6th inning. But due to a massive conspiratorial campaign by goliath heavy hitters, goliaths didn't arrive until the 8th inning. Doesn't matter, bitcoin's main role is to wait patiently, quietly to be the emergency life boat when the worlds real  economic crisis rears its head. In the meantime it is being given all sorts of pseudo roles such as freedom money or digital gold or AI agent value transferrer, etc.  I am paraphrasing the white paper's author, I never really talked to him about it in detail.

[uneng]

Bitcoin can survive without institutional investors, but we have to be realistic: without big players' money, Bitcoin wouldn't be on the current price level. Their money is useful to boost Bitcoin to new ATHs. If the market relied only on average investors, there wouldn't be enough demand and flux of money coming in. And there are pros and cons regards it. Pros is obviously the price valuation Bitcoin gets from it. Cons is the fact the market gets too centralized on the hands of few whales, causing market manipulation as consequence.

[blockman]

I do believe that bitcoin can survive without this institutions .

It can survive without the institutions. But let's not forget that they've got the most money that the market needs and that's why we've seen a lot of overnight increase when they have bought. I think we should ignore the thought whether they're needed by Bitcoin to survive or not. Because they can also be the same as us as retailers or in their minds, they're small investors that don't move the market a lot with their purchases. Since it's a free market and everyone can participate the market, the time of acceptance will come that they're needed to be a part of this market.

[pooya87]

This has raised a question in my mind: If these institutions suddenly decides to leave the market, what effect will it have on Bitcoin.

Nothing. Things would go back to how they were for over a decade, specially since institutional investors don't have a major effect.

But now, we know that these companies brings in large capital, increased liquidity, market influence , and as much as we try to ignore, they bring potential of centralization of supply.

Do they really? It looks more like they buy some bitcoins then start making money by offering a centralized service to fiat investors. And I have said many times that they will move forward toward fractional banking in the near future which means they will have even less effect on bitcoin itself and they would become Ponzi schemes...

[shinratensei_]

Even when the institutional investors are against bitcoin, it's still doing very well and repeatedly breaking its all time high record.
The institutional investors capital flow is making the market deeper in liquidity but by no means the main reason bitcoin could get this far.

Bitcoin has always been a thriving currency even before institutional investors are normalizing investing in it and even diversifying their portofolio.

[Lida93]

When bitcoin was first created, for years it survived solely on miners, developers, retail investors, communities, and early adopters . There was no ETF, and no coperate treasuries.

Obviously this is why even should institutional capital leave the bitcoin market it still won't affect the existence of bitcoin as everything would only normalize to how it was ongoing from it creation stage.

I think a lot of what has entangled bitcoin price reactions with global/geopolitical events is drawn from the large institutional capital involvement in the adoption. We have to understand that institutional involvement in bitcoin only a necessary evil for bitcoin rapid growth but it isn't a bedrock for bitcoin's survival.

[betswift]

Even when the institutional investors are against bitcoin, it's still doing very well and repeatedly breaking its all time high record.
The institutional investors capital flow is making the market deeper in liquidity but by no means the main reason bitcoin could get this far.

Bitcoin has always been a thriving currency even before institutional investors are normalizing investing in it and even diversifying their portofolio.

Are they against it, though?... They seem to only deepen their hold of the situation, bit by bit.

BTC would be fine without them, but they can't let it be relevant without their own names being near it .

[Judith87403]

Institutional funds is not important for the survival of Bitcoin, yet it does shape its short-to-mid term attitude. Bitcoin for year ran for miners, developers, and demand on retail alone. Such base still exists.

When firms such like BlackRock     or issuers of ETF pulls out, you would possibly see a sharp drop of price and reduced liquidity at first. Volatility may spike before stabilizing. Long term, the network may continue functioning as it's security relys  on miners and node operators, instead ETFs.

The real matter of concern is not survival, it is concentration. Big custodians holding significant supply could influence markets and narratives of governance. Still, the protocol of Bitcoin rules do not change based on thee owner of the coins.

Institutions speed up adoption and price discovery, yet they do not define the existence of Bitcoin.