Why we're yet to witness the real Bitcoin adoption curve

[Somegory]

There are many people who think Bitcoin is a scam that is why Bitcoin is not implemented everywhere but those who know about Bitcoin are accepting Bitcoin as a national currency. In that case, Salvador. They keep a lot of Bitcoin in reserve for their country for inflation protection and financial security.

That's already changing, el Salvador cares about Bitcoin, if it's scam they will be the first to have abandoned bitcoin, if that wasn't enough, president of the United states starts talking about Bitcoin, putting his family into the innovation.

If Bitcoin was a scam it will never happen,  how about BlackRock and others? They don't associate with scams, the truth is millions of people are so dumb to see things clearly, until it's too late, this is who they are.

It took me a big figure to want more Bitcoin, John MCAfee for example, followed by Kiyosaki, I wasn't even expecting the president of the most popular country to support Bitcoin.

It shows that no matter how far this thing goes, many people will always remain the same old fashioned.

[Marvelockg]

Bitcoin's adoption isn't based on how many people own Bitcoin, it should be based on how much global capital is dependent on the existence of Bitcoin, simply because a sovereign fund allocating 10% may matter more than 10 million retail users buying $100.

This might not resonate well with the idea that bitcoin was actually created to help the people and not just institutions. The number of persons and particularly an average person that makes use of bitcoin across the globe is the major indicator that bitcoin has actually fulfilled it main purpose of invention.

If only institutions and whales adopt bitcoin, though they might be able to buy in larger quantity which will shoot bitcoin price higher, that alone is not to give the right impression that bitcoin adoption has gone far. The real bitcoin adoption happens when the people, institutions, nations and the government sees bitcoin as both ancient asset and a form that can be used in carrying out transaction. If bitcoin revolves around whales and institutions alone, I don't think bitcoin has proven to be what an average person should be proud of and that deviats from what the owner of bitcoin intends for bitcoin.

[Agbe]

Institutional adoption will surely change the game permanently.

This is where the adoption of bitcoin should begins and once the institutions, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers accept bitcoin then consumers will accept it too for the smooth transaction but there will be a big problem about the price of bitcoin. Now will the price come down for a minimum bearable amount? Because that will be a disturbing factor in the transaction process or usage time if I want to buy a bottle of Coka Cola.

[wmiran]

People tend to see adoption from the angle of; retail ownership and price speculation. When this set discuss adoption, they make statements like; why do people not use Bitcoin to buy commodities like coca cola. The right response to that is; why do people not use hold to buy coca cola.

But real adoption is found in ; corporate treasuries, trade settlement, collateral markets, and energy settlement.

Bitcoin's adoption isn't based on how many people own Bitcoin, it should be based on how much global capital is dependent on the existence of Bitcoin, simply because a sovereign fund allocating 10% may matter more than 10 million retail users buying $100.
 
Institutional adoption will surely change the game permanently.

Bitcoin today may resemble the internet in the early 1990s

I mostly agree. Real adoption is less about retail usage and more about how deeply Bitcoin becomes embedded in financial systems and institutional balance sheets. Price speculation and everyday payments matter, but long-term impact comes from capital allocation and infrastructure use.

[Smartprofit]

In my opinion, Bitcoin's core value is its decentralization. The more people who hold Bitcoin, the more fundamentally valuable it is (and therefore, the higher its price).🙋

If one institutional player owns 10 % of all coins, that's no reason to celebrate. It's practically a disaster for Bitcoin!

In practice, Bitcoin isn't used for international payments. In most cases, stablecoins (USDT, USDC) are used for these purposes. Even the IRGC, when accepting payments for the passage of foreign ships through the Strait of Hormuz, uses USDT, not Bitcoin.

I'm concerned that institutional players will ultimately destroy Bitcoin. They'll centralize it, strip it of its censorship resistance, switch it to a different consensus algorithm... I don't see institutional players as benefactors of humanity. They have their own interests, which have nothing in common with the interests of ordinary people.🙎

[Dunamisx]

Everything followed you procedures and we cannot expect that bitcoin should just hit the highest peak at once when it is not a scam, one thing we must understand is that bitcoin is taken more of the usual procedures to shows that it has come to stay and that is why he discovered every time to time people are getting more familiar with the network, as we continue to have an increasing bitcoin adoption, this wasn't how it all started and we are still going more better than this.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

People tend to see adoption from the angle of; retail ownership and price speculation. When this set discuss adoption, they make statements like; why do people not use Bitcoin to buy commodities like coca cola. The right response to that is; why do people not use hold to buy coca cola.

But real adoption is found in ; corporate treasuries, trade settlement, collateral markets, and energy settlement.

Bitcoin's adoption isn't based on how many people own Bitcoin, it should be based on how much global capital is dependent on the existence of Bitcoin, simply because a sovereign fund allocating 10% may matter more than 10 million retail users buying $100.
 
Institutional adoption will surely change the game permanently.

Bitcoin today may resemble the internet in the early 1990s

I understand the point you are coming from, but in the end, we have to know that on chain transactions matters a lot in bitcoins adoption to ensure that the network remains healthy.

Imagine institutions around the globe invests billions of dollars in bitcoin and held, driving the world market capitalization to hundreds of trillions of dollars, only for no single transaction to happen on chain, this obviously won't be healthy for the network because miner who help to maintain the network depend on those transactions and fees they get from it for their livelihood and to keep maintaining their mining equipment.

So, in as much as we advocate for institutional money to come heavy on bitcoin and drive its market cap to hundreds of trillions, on chain adoption is still very important because the more transactions appear on the network, the more secure the network will remain.

[wmiran]

I agree to an extent. Retail adoption gets the attention, but institutional adoption is what can have the biggest long-term impact. That said, both matter—institutions bring capital, while everyday users create the network effects that make Bitcoin useful in the first place.

[Abiky]

In my opinion, Bitcoin's core value is its decentralization. The more people who hold Bitcoin, the more fundamentally valuable it is (and therefore, the higher its price).🙋

If one institutional player owns 10 % of all coins, that's no reason to celebrate. It's practically a disaster for Bitcoin!

In practice, Bitcoin isn't used for international payments. In most cases, stablecoins (USDT, USDC) are used for these purposes. Even the IRGC, when accepting payments for the passage of foreign ships through the Strait of Hormuz, uses USDT, not Bitcoin.

I'm concerned that institutional players will ultimately destroy Bitcoin. They'll centralize it, strip it of its censorship resistance, switch it to a different consensus algorithm... I don't see institutional players as benefactors of humanity. They have their own interests, which have nothing in common with the interests of ordinary people.🙎

Exactly. An institutional player holding a sizeable portion of the supply should be no reason to celebrate. BUT, people these days are interested in making money. So if such a move leads to higher market prices, they will celebrate. I mean, nobody cares about decentralization or equality these days. Only libertarians, cypherpunks, geeks, and a few crypto enthusiasts. The majority will simply "go with the flow".

I'm afraid that increased adoption by "Wall Street" and governments, will lead Bitcoin towards centralization in the long term. Even if nodes and miners are geographically-distributed. What use would it be for the core Blockchain to remain decentralized, if governments and other big players hold most of the circulating supply? You won't be able to buy, sell, or even use BTC if you don't go through one of these entities and comply with KYC. We'll be forced to do this, since most of the supply will be in governments' and "Wall Street's" hands. Only time will tell...

[Dogedegen]

There are many people who think Bitcoin is a scam that is why Bitcoin is not implemented everywhere but those who know about Bitcoin are accepting Bitcoin as a national currency. In that case, Salvador. They keep a lot of Bitcoin in reserve for their country for inflation protection and financial security.

That's already changing, el Salvador cares about Bitcoin, if it's scam they will be the first to have abandoned bitcoin, if that wasn't enough, president of the United states starts talking about Bitcoin, putting his family into the innovation.

If Bitcoin was a scam it will never happen,  how about BlackRock and others? They don't associate with scams, the truth is millions of people are so dumb to see things clearly, until it's too late, this is who they are.

It took me a big figure to want more Bitcoin, John MCAfee for example, followed by Kiyosaki, I wasn't even expecting the president of the most popular country to support Bitcoin.

It shows that no matter how far this thing goes, many people will always remain the same old fashioned.

Whether people think that something is a scam or not does not have any influence on whether it is really a scam. All that matters is the objective truth to it, perceptions change with the times and propaganda manipulations of the public. Bitcoin by definition can not be a scam, it is mathematically verifiable and delivers verifiable functionality and utility. Some charlatan may tell you some lies about Bitcoin and deceive you, but that does not make Bitcoin a scam. You got tricked by a scammer into believing something that is not true. Sadly many people are not even able to realize this difference, but we should not bother since changing other people is near impossible. If they want to change themselves they will do that, otherwise it is hopeless.

Exactly. An institutional player holding a sizeable portion of the supply should be no reason to celebrate. BUT, people these days are interested in making money. So if such a move leads to higher market prices, they will celebrate. I mean, nobody cares about decentralization or equality these days. Only libertarians, cypherpunks, geeks, and a few crypto enthusiasts. The majority will simply "go with the flow".

This is not true because this comes from a misunderstanding of market maturation and asset adoption curves. This kind of institutional adoption was inevitable in an asset that is growing in recognition and maturing. While centralization of anything does have its downside, the celebration is more about that this is a sign of Bitcoin maturing and being widely recognized.

I'm afraid that increased adoption by "Wall Street" and governments, will lead Bitcoin towards centralization in the long term. Even if nodes and miners are geographically-distributed. What use would it be for the core Blockchain to remain decentralized, if governments and other big players hold most of the circulating supply? You won't be able to buy, sell, or even use BTC if you don't go through one of these entities and comply with KYC. We'll be forced to do this, since most of the supply will be in governments' and "Wall Street's" hands. Only time will tell...

This scenario is as unlikely as a solar flare destroying life on Earth and Bitcoin too. Let's not talk about hypotheticals that would need to push the price per coin into double million digits to have any chance of being even a little bit true. They can not prevent people from trading P2P as long as the core protocol is decentralized, and if you don't understand how that is going to stay possible then you don't understand how Bitcoin works.