Using Crypto ≠ Adopting Bitcoin: Are Nigerians Really Adopting Bitcoin?

[Felicity_Tide]

Imo, bitcoin adoption is more related to how the people, government or even businesses sees Bitcoin, and how they choose to use it. Holding is a form of bitcoin adoption... Accepting and sending, In the form of a payment system is also another form of adoption. And mind you, whether you choose to trade for a short term or long term, you are still an adopter. Let's not forget that it has always been about a peer-2-peer electronic cash system.

So what you’re saying in other words is that, folks who decide to buy bitcoin now, wait a few days/weeks/months, for the price to go up, and when price surges, boom they sell off, that even these folks are also called investors and HODLers just because they bought bitcoin, held it for some time and sold it? Because this concept basically sounds like actual long term holders, just a difference of the time horizon.

You're actually replying to something entirely different. The discussion is about the things that brings about Bitcoin adoption. The OP argued that holding, or buying and selling is not enough, and went on to say that understanding certain things are far more reasonable points to classify adoption. And if you can take a moment to go through my own post I quoted above, I shared my own opinion on what I think adoption truly means. It has nothing to do with if someone who sells or buy is called an Investor or not.

And, I just read through what I wrote, but still couldn't figure out where I wrote what you understood. My own definition of adoption still boils down to usage, and Bitcoin usage differs for everyone. Holding is a form of adoption like I already pointed out, same thing for those who buy and sell, or those who trade. It has nothing to do with who's an Investor or not.

The fact that two concepts looks, feels or sounds alike doesn’t necessarily mean they’re the same thing mate, and drawing a distinct line between two familiar but different concepts makes you logical. Anyone can argue that short term traders are actually investors or HODLers, just as anyone can argue that Bitcoin users are same with Bitcoin adopters, but only critical thinkers would be able to look beyond the similarities and realize there’s actually a difference between the both concepts.

Like I said, the discussion is about bitcoin adoption. Be it an hodler or an Investor, or a trader_{(I'm still yet to figure out what you're trying to point out)}, it doesn't really matter because they all use Bitcoin in different ways, which makes them all adopters of Bitcoin. The key word here is 'usage'.

[Tungbulu]

You're actually replying to something entirely different. The discussion is about the things that brings about Bitcoin adoption. The OP argued that holding, or buying and selling is not enough, and went on to say that understanding certain things are far more reasonable points to classify adoption. And if you can take a moment to go through my own post I quoted above, I shared my own opinion on what I think adoption truly means. It has nothing to do with if someone who sells or buy is called an Investor or not.

And, I just read through what I wrote, but still couldn't figure out where I wrote what you understood. My own definition of adoption still boils down to usage, and Bitcoin usage differs for everyone. Holding is a form of adoption like I already pointed out, same thing for those who buy and sell, or those who trade. It has nothing to do with who's an Investor or not.

Maybe if you calm down to read through my comment to understand and not just to argue, you’ll get to really understand what I’m trying to say, because I think you’re making the term usage so broad to the point that it’s almost losing the distinction that the OP is trying to make here. If the fact that simply owning, buying, selling and/or trading Bitcoin automatically makes one or qualifies as adoption, that means we can also agree that every other form of exposure to Bitcoin automatically becomes adoption too, including a person who only bought Bitcoin purely as a speculative asset, without any intentions of ever using Bitcoin, ain’t that right?

If you’re reasonable enough, then you’ll know that there’s quite a difference between simply participating in the Bitcoin market and adopting Bitcoin as something that you actually have use for or something you’ve basically integrated into your overall financial life. Indeed, holding Bitcoin is technically a form of adoption, but that in my opinion isn’t necessarily evidence of meaningful adoption by itself. A person can just decide to buy and hold Bitcoin with expectations of the price rising, without any actual interest in its monetary properties, censorship resistance, self custody, or actual utility, does it still mean they’ve adopted Bitcoin?

What I said earlier were mostly instances to help draw a distinct line between speculation from adoption. Buying and selling Bitcoin may be part of adoption but that doesn’t mean it should be automatically be treated as proof of adoption. Except you want to tell me that anyone who has ever bought Bitcoin has actually adopted Bitcoin, without even considering how and why they decided to interact with it, but if you also say Yes to that, then it’ll only prove just how shallow your understanding is about what Bitcoin adoption is really about.