Which is better for bitcoin adoption?

[Zoomic]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

[tbct_mt2]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

There will be bitcoins stored for long term holding and investment, there are bitcoins used daily and it's how a decentralized community are. You can not stop any people, any institutions from buying and holding, while if they want to spend bitcoin for anything, it's their freedom. All these activities are important components to make Bitcoin blockchain lively, Bitcoin market lively too and Bitcoin has high value partially because of that.

More bitcoins are stored and held long term don't destroy Bitcoin value and price. If you need example, you can take gold. Anyone trade gold daily, use gold daily for payments, remittances, ...

[hmbdofficial]

I think it’s better we distinguish between bitcoin adoption as an investment asset and bitcoin adoption as money. ETFs, institutional investors, companies and banks holding bitcoin are certainly sign of growing acceptance, which can definitely improve the liquidity. But if an institution simply buys bitcoin in billions and hold on a balance sheet to later sell for fiat, then I’ll regard it as bitcoin is being used as an investment asset. And that is adoption actually but it’s very different from someone using to bitcoin to pay merchants, or making cross border payments Wch can move value without relying non any traditional intermediaries.

Personally, I wouldn’t say institutional adoption is better than everyday utility, because to me I think they actually measure different things, if the goal is to prove that bitcoin is becoming a legitimate financial asset, then institutional adoption is significant, but is the goal is to prove that bitcoin can work or function as permissionless global money m, then actual economic  usage should be arguably more direct metric. So when I hear bitcoin adoption is growing, te question that cross my mind always is adoption for what purpose ? Is it holding bitcoin as an asset? Or using bitcoin as everyday money to settle transactions.

[Ruttoshi]

If institutions decide to buy Bitcoin and holdi which I believe some are doing now apart from ETFs that are after short term profit, it will make the price of bitcoin keep on skyrocketing due to limited supply in circulation and that can give them the opportunity to easily manipulate the time in future to favor them when they want to sell. Though, it's only a short term manipulation.

However, we all have our various reasons why we adopted bitcoin and no one can stop you from that purpose. Bitcoin will be use as utility daily and as a long term investment. Traders and hodlers are the ones keeping the network ongoing.

[Pablo-wood]

However, we all have our various reasons why we adopted bitcoin and no one can stop you from that purpose. Bitcoin will be use as utility daily and as a long term investment. Traders and hodlers are the ones keeping the network ongoing.

No one will stop us from our purpose and reasons for investing in Bitcoin but to me institutions involvement is making the market look like a  manipulative field. This institutions target long term goals and are less concerned about it's daily utility all the picture is the big market and how they can control the volatility to their advantage either through push or dump approach. Traders are only concerned with short term profits the ones truly keeping the network going are the p2p vendors.

[retreat]

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

The adoption growth from institutions isn't any better than everyday usage adoption. Institutions might have more resources and be able to buy more Bitcoin, which can increase market capitalization, but at the same time, it can also make Bitcoin concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of large players.

I'm more interested in seeing Bitcoin being used like decentralized money which is the actual goal of Bitcoin itself, rather than being used as a speculative asset. But since Bitcoin is an open market, institutions can still freely buy and accumulate as much Bitcoin as they want, and we can't stop them from doing that.

[Rockstarguy]

I think we all need all kinds of adoption in Bitcoin. At first, Bitcoin started with individual adoption, and at that time, so many people were being skeptical about Bitcoin. However, institutional adoption of Bitcoin has opened the eyes of many people to see the importance of Bitcoin.
Institutional adoption of Bitcoin focuses on investing and holding large amounts of Bitcoin, but this has not changed how people use Bitcoin. There are some people who still spend Bitcoin as an everyday currency for different purposes. Institutional adoption of Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more recognition.

[Ambatman]

Well I would say Bitcoin has seen adoption as an asset or store of value
More than being an asset.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

institutions don't really buy like they want to trade
Take for example ETFs brings Bitcoin to the doors of traditional investors
So they don't own or are they holding for profit
They do for investors that want to through
Some like Strategy use it as a strategic reserve.

it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

Well they both Adoption
While the latter focus on medium of exchange
The former usually make use of as a store of value.

[AmaGold70]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

The utility of Bitcoin is all about the usage of Bitcoin, like Cross border transactions, peer to peer transaction which anybody holding Bitcoin can make use of but when it comes to adoption of Bitcoin, we are actually talking about the acceptance of Bitcoin, and the acceptance of this institutional investors has given Bitcoin an edge for wide spread adoption, many individuals now believe that Bitcoin is a legitimate digital asset. Before now when Bitcoin was in it's initial stage , just very few individuals believed in Bitcoin, but as time goes on institutions began to see the real value of Bitcoin, and start investing in it as it increases in value, and reduces in volatility, so this institutional involvement, countries involvement too is what is increasing Bitcoin adoption.

[EjiukaSpecial]

Which is better? both are necessary, I don't think we really need to choose one over the other. Institutions holding billions in Bitcoin is adoption even when I know that their large holdings aren't just enough because Bitcoin wasn't primarily created to be an investment asset but to be used more as money.

Also, it'll be difficult for Bitcoin to become globally usable as means of exchange on our daily transactions without some level of institutional adoption first.

When there's huge amount of liquidity, easier and wider adoption, it'll be more practical for the ordinary people out there to use Bitcoin, that's why I think both sides are essential in their different reasons.

[nara1892]

Hmm honestly I'm hard to choose about which one is better because both test different theses of Bitcoin, institutions hold that Bitcoin as an asset that will be maintained in the long run to store value while everyday use it means someone uses Bitcoin as money (means of payment), both have different purposes although both forms of adoption.
But on the other hand, in general, most people prefer to make Bitcoin as a store of value in the long term and has proven to be profitable.

[Shadiq]

Bitcoin is still being used for savings and everyday payments. However, Bitcoin is more popular as an investment asset than for everyday use. The reason for this is that Bitcoin has not yet gained enough popularity for everyday use to be exchanged with everyone, but rather with certain people for everyday exchange. Even its fees still make everyday use expensive. Bitcoin is cheaper than fiat for international transactions or large transactions, but fiat is still cheaper for everyday payments.

To keep the market running, we need all kinds of people, some to save or some to trade or some to use for payments. However, Bitcoin is most popular for investment and due to this popularity, the price of Bitcoin will skyrocket in the future.

[B-BossMan]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

But in reality, the both institution and the our everyday utility are actually works in collaboration, because the two of them has thier own biggest roles to play, the institutional increases the people's confidence and the trust towards Bitcoin investment while the those using it everyday increases the bitcoin adoptions, that's if they must not have to change the bitcoin to their own currency before making use of it.
Because this are common individuals that gives bitcoin a forum to be existing outside the investment assets, if at all I can still say that the both are still important in bitcoin, since both of the institutional involvement and everyday utility has thier own roles to play alongside the bitcoin. Also an investors may prefer holding the bitcoin for long-term growths while making used of it as everyday utility makes sense to some people. Though many people can also bring thier opinions, if not I must say that everyday utility beings more or genuine adoption towards Bitcoin.

[Justbillywitt]

All are part of the adoption, there’s no way bitcoin would get to the level we all want or has been anticipating for without the institutional investors coming in. What you are accusing the institutional investors, individuals were already doing it, so I don’t see how that is a problem for bitcoin wider adoption. Even before the institutional investors started coming into bitcoin investment, only a handful of people were actually in it for the everyday utility you are talking about. Therefore those using it for the utility and those are all playing their roles as bitcoin adoption keeps growing.

[Pearl_20]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

Institutional involvement aided in giving bitcoin more relevance and adoption because most of these institutions buy bitcoins in large quantities which is impactful towards the growth of the market. If they sell, it shouldn't bother us because of course they are not investing to hold bitcoin forever. It is certain that institutional investors will sell their bitcoins but they won't sell all.

As for everyday utility, it has not shifted because there are organizations that makes payments in bitcoins and there are also individuals that still do businesses in bitcoins. There may not be a balance between using bitcoin as everyday utility and institutional involvement, but they both play important role in bitcoin adoption.

[Faisal2202]

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

Gold accounts for 10% of manufacturing demand, and the rest is institutional, retail, and other forms of demand, which is probably held for holding purposes. If institutions or governments, which probably hold more gold than individuals, start selling it all, the demand will decrease, so will the value.

Now, the usage of BTC as payment, remittances, cross-border payments, although the same thing, etc., also has a lower percentage than the percentage of its use for long-term holding, and now institutions and governments have stepped in here as well.

Now, both are commodities and have almost the same kind of scenario? Yes, your concern is right. This is not better adoption in terms of usage, but it is still adoption.

[OgNasty]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

Institutions aren't really waiting to sell.  They are holding BTC for others in the form of ETFs and they get paid to manage those ETFs.  For them, the higher the Bitcoin price, the bigger the money pile is that they get to take a slice of.  Institutions also offer the ability to sell options on your holdings or to buy options to speculate on the price.  Liquidity is also much deeper with them around.  While it is easy to look at Bitcoin and say it has failed as a P2P currency, it is clear that as a rare digital asset it has become quite popular to speculate on.

[Hypnotizer]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

I suppose both of them are considered adoption but depending on context, but in general terms they’re both adoption and the ecosystem needs both of them to thrive.

Institutions holding for the perfect time to sell aren’t better than widespread adoption but from what OgNasty said, since some of these institutions aren’t just “holding and waiting for the right time” rather they’re just helping people hold and those people are the ones that will decide whether to sell or not then they’re as equally important as widespread everyday utility usage imo.

[Antidote47k]

One angle that is easy to miss is that institutional adoption doesn’t necessarily mean that more economic activity is happening on Bitcoin itself. ETFs, custodians and other financial products could give investors exposure to Bitcoin without them ever making any transaction. In that sense, it could become more widely adopted as an asset while a growing share of the actual trading and price discovery happens off chain.
Beyond that, bitcoin’s block subsidy keeps declining, so overtime the network will depend on transaction fees to compensate miners. What happens when more economic activities are settled off chain? And how much of that activity ultimately creates demand for scarce bitcoin block space?

That creates a distinction between simply adopting “Bitcoin” and adopting the “Bitcoin network”, what I’m saying basically is that the first can grow rapidly without necessarily increasing the usage of the second. For those reasons, I think that makes institutional adoption a less straightforward metric than simply looking at how much BTC institutions hold.

[Abu-Naim]

I have been longing to ask; it seems that what is regarded as bitcoin adoption have shifted from every day utility to institutional involvement.

If institutions hold billions in bitcoin waiting for the right time to sell, is it a better adoption than widespread every day usage?

By institutional Involvement I meant; Institutional investors, ETFs, companies holding bitcoin, banks in bitcoin;
While,
By everyday utility I meant; people using bitcoin for payments, casinos accepting bitcoin, remittances, cross-border payments etc.

The idea of Bitcoin was to gives financial freedom, but I think on investment aspect is better than daily use. If we use Bitcoin daily, it will bring more adoption, but holding for long will defines Bitcoin for its purpose which is store of value and financial freedom.

Holding Bitcoin for future reference is what I think defines it better, you can see the value of your investment after some years because we have seen how so many investors that invested when the price is low and are now in profits, they have achieved this through patience; if they could have used the Bitcoin for long to exchange for goods and services, they would have loss their Bitcoin in possession, but they hold it and are now in profits; therefore, I think it is better than daily usage since we have fiat.