Which is better for bitcoin adoption?

[Cleanshit]

In my opinion, the true adoption of Bitcoin is through its use in daily payments as an alternative to the current banking system and not just holding it in the long term to make profits when the price rises.

But at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the use of Bitcoin in large quantities by institutions to hedge against inflation and as a strategic reserve can be considered part of the adoption because it keeps Bitcoin somewhat stable and makes volatility less and manipulation more difficult.

Yes daily payments are do closer to the original idea of Bitcoin as a peer to peer Systerm, but also institutional can be of help to create liquidity and also confidence that needed for wider usage.

Personally would say when both sides grow together it a real success, if it is that Bitcoin is being hold only it can mainly be an investment asset. And if Bitcoin is being us to receive money, pay for things use to move across different borders then we will see that Bitcoin is going to be use as money.

[Dareo]

Honestly which is more important depends on what we want to see Bitcoin as. Institutional ownership of BTC creates a large capital base and long term trust in the market. However just institutional ownership of Bitcoin as a payment network will not increase much. As daily usage increases, people will use Bitcoin not just for price, but also for necessities. So it’s not one without the other. To me long term holders solidify Bitcoin’s value, and active users prove its practical necessity.

[BlackBoss_]

As daily usage increases, people will use Bitcoin not just for price, but also for necessities. So it’s not one without the other. To me long term holders solidify Bitcoin’s value, and active users prove its practical necessity.

People use bitcoin to pay for something, to invest, to store their wealth. Nobody use bitcoin just for price, that is a very confusing point of view from you, I really can not understand it.

There are many purposes, use cases of Bitcoin, and people use bitcoin differently but in general the adoption for Bitcoin makes its value, then value results in price on the market. Price follow the value and solid value makes good price in long term, and this is a point where Bitcoin is the best and strongest in cryptocurrency market.

Even many top altcoins did not have these things and many top altcoins died.
Don't buy altcoins because they are top altcoins.

[Ishicryptic]

I don't think that comparing which is better for Bitcoin adoption between institutions holding and usage for daily spending is relevant anymore because the reality of what is on ground now is that both institutions and individuals are mostly holding Bitcoin for profit so it is now basically a valuable asset than a currency for everyday use. Maybe trends can change in the future where Bitcoin circulation would increase to the level where it would return to it's original purpose of using it for peer to peer transactions but until then everybody is hording it and waiting for price to skyrocket to ATH. As long as institutions and retailers are willing to hold more than what they are willing to sell there will always be scarcity in the market which would mean ATH on the long term, these profit mindset alone would keep increasing Bitcoin adoption, when institutions sell other institutions and retailers are willing to buy.

[uchegod-21]

Do we really need to choose? I have never differentiated between the two forms of adoption. Whether one chooses to buy and hodl bitcoin for a very long time  or see bitcoin more as money, it is because they saw value in it and used it how they value bitcoin. Institutional investors may be seen as a group of people just using bitcoin for profits, but we cannot deny they have been a very useful tool in driving acceptance among people who look up to them and in turn drive more adoption in different areas.

Instead of trying to separate them, I would rather say that a combination of the two is what makes bitcoin adoption beautiful; you keep some as a store of value and use some for everyday utility. None is more important than the other.

Both buying and hodling contributes to Bitcoin's value and adoption. We don't really have to choose and you are right about that. Because, someone can decide to buy and hodl at a time, which can serve different purposes for them. That is what entices people to invest in Bitcoin.

But, it's still important for one to understand how it works, so they can be able to do the right thing and make an informed decision in their own interest, rather than making a decision based on other people's points of view, which can negatively affect their plans and mindset towards investing in Bitcoin.

Yea, I  never thought that anyone could have such thought of which form of adoption is better, that question isn't really neccessary to me. I believe that all forms of adoption are thesame. If we begin to push the narrative that hodling bitcoin is better, or that using and accepting it as payment is better, bitcoin will not be better valued in its entirety. All manners or forms of adoption contribute to Bitcoin's  usefulness and growth. Bitcoin is unique because it can be used by different people in different ways.

[Myleschetty]

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

It all depends on how we personally interpret Bitcoin adoption; since any adoption help BTC gain more practical usefulness, benefit, and daily life suitability is BTC adoption, which is something institutional involvement executes.

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.

It is never a better adoption than widespread daily usage for institutions to hold billions of dollars in Bitcoin and sell it when the time comes. However, given the decline in the purchasing power of fiat money, no rational institution will hold billions of dollars in Bitcoin and sell it based on the multipliers it has achieved so far.
In the meantime, institutional billion USD holdings never deter people from using BTC as a form of payment, particularly when using it lets people avoid costly middleman fees and cross border payment delays.

[Synchronice]

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.

Bitcoin is a payment method, it's a currency that can be used for making payments, just like a regular fiat. What's best for Bitcoin adoption? Of course it's better if Bitcoin is widely used as a payment method, not only as a store of value. Companies investing billions of dollars into Bitcoin and using it as a store of value is a form of adoption but why should we ignore Bitcoin's ability of being used as a payment method? By the way, truth be told, Bitcoin isn't designed for massive usage because blocks have a limit number of transactions and at the same time, transactions take some time to get confirmed. It's not really very practical for massive adoption in terms of using it as a payment method.

[Lexandroove]

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.

It’s less about choosing one over the other and more about identifying that institutional adoption and everyday utility serve different purposes.

Institutions bring liquidity, legitimacy, and easier access to Bitcoin, while everyday usage proves that people actually need it as money (which is even more important, in my books).

The strongest outcome, however, would be both happening simultaneously: institutions treating BTC as a serious asset while ordinary people increasingly use it as a practical financial tool.

[Nothingtodo]

I think the institutional use of Bitcoin is being observed more than its aesthetic utility. The daily utility of Bitcoin will be possible only when most countries in the world accept Bitcoin as their means of transaction. That is, they will accept Bitcoin as a payment system for business transactions, for the exchange of goods. But that is not the case in reality because different countries in the world are not accepting Bitcoin as this payment system. However, different countries and institutions, large mega institutions, are holding Bitcoin as a strategic reserve of their institutions and this is certainly much, much more than the daily utility of Bitcoin.

[MArsland]

After the various types of adoption that occur today, we sometimes think like this :Why do I use BTC to buy goods or transactions every day if in fact now Bitcoin is more dominant as an asset, isn't the longer I hold it the higher its value?.

We also know that the permissionless nature of bitcoin, it further reinforces that there is no compulsion of the owner to spend bitcoin. So we really can't dictate the use of bitcoin, those who own it have the right to use it for anything. To me most importantly with all the types of adoption that exist, it has shown that Bitcoin is becoming more widely accepted.

[Zoomic]

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.

Institutional presence has brought real value to Bitcoin, I totally agree with you. With them liquidity has significantly improved, Bitcoin has gained more exposure and they've also helped push Bitcoin into the mainstream financial system.

That said, we can't shy away from the fact that there's a difference between adopting Bitcoin as an investment asset and adopting it as money. The former is dominating at the moment while the later seems not to slowly happening.

So I'm wondering if the current direction of adoption is somehow taking us away from the P2P design that Satoshi originally had in mind when creating Bitcoin

[Gost ms]

I think the institutional use of Bitcoin is being observed more than its aesthetic utility. The daily utility of Bitcoin will be possible only when most countries in the world accept Bitcoin as their means of transaction. That is, they will accept Bitcoin as a payment system for business transactions, for the exchange of goods. But that is not the case in reality because different countries in the world are not accepting Bitcoin as this payment system. However, different countries and institutions, large mega institutions, are holding Bitcoin as a strategic reserve of their institutions and this is certainly much, much more than the daily utility of Bitcoin.

One of the biggest reasons for not accepting Bitcoin as a medium of transaction is the volatility of Bitcoin, due to the volatility of Bitcoin, not everyone is willing to transact through Bitcoin. Although every country has declared Bitcoin as legal and even if they want to transact through Bitcoin, not everyone will be willing to transact with Bitcoin. Because suppose you bought 0.00058 BTC for $100 today and after you bought it or a few days later, the price of Bitcoin decreased and the price of your Bitcoin decreased from $100 to $90. This is why Bitcoin is not used as a medium of transaction. There is a lot of criticism about whether we will see transactions with Bitcoin in the future.

[As-Soon-As]

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.

Bitcoin is being widely accepted by people, some are using it for everyday purchases, and many people are holding it for the long term. More and more institutions are adopting Bitcoin more aggressively, relying more on each other to hold it, including strategy companies and Bitcoin ETF and other companies that are holding Bitcoin extensively.
And in the future, more and more Bitcoin holdings will be built, as Bitcoin holdings become more popular for daily payment purposes and as well.

[Tiaramane]

I think both matter tbh. Institutions holding billions is great for liquidity and legitimacy, but if nobody is actually using BTC to pay, save, or move money, can we really call that mass adoption?

The sweet spot is when both happen.

[bangjoe]

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.

In this case there is no problem whatsoever, because bitcoin is an asset that can generally have multiple function, and also there is no entity that can prevent a person, group, organization, from owning bitcoins, whether it is a transactional tool, investment, store of value, or money parking lot, or even a pension fund, and much more.

My Point is that any form of purchase or use or utilization by using bitcoin is an adoption that is legal, and this ETF is also regulated and systemized, so whoever it is whether it is institutional, retail or others there is no problem whatsoever, regarding buying and selling it is a law of the market supply and demand market, they consider that bitcoins is a financial asset/commodity etc, that they can sell and buy for profit, just like us in general, my opinion is both are good, and maybe in the future countries that will adopt bitcoins, and ya everything which is better than get one side eyes.

[Iranus]

One of the biggest reasons for not accepting Bitcoin as a medium of transaction is the volatility of Bitcoin, due to the volatility of Bitcoin, not everyone is willing to transact through Bitcoin. Although every country has declared Bitcoin as legal and even if they want to transact through Bitcoin, not everyone will be willing to transact with Bitcoin. Because suppose you bought 0.00058 BTC for $100 today and after you bought it or a few days later, the price of Bitcoin decreased and the price of your Bitcoin decreased from $100 to $90. This is why Bitcoin is not used as a medium of transaction. There is a lot of criticism about whether we will see transactions with Bitcoin in the future.

Government are also a major barrier to Bitcoin being widely accepted as a means of payment. But at the moment, volatility is probably the biggest reason.

El Salvador is a good example. Even though the government allowed people to use Bitcoin instead of fiat, in reality only a few percent of the population use Bitcoin for payments. Most people still prefer fiat and traditional payment methods, and the reason is pretty obvious, Bitcoin is too volatile.

As long as the volatility remains, it's hard to see Bitcoin being widely used as a means of payment.

[purple_sparkles]

I think bitcoin is developing organically and rapidly, and everyone is finding their own convenient way to use it. It’s great that we have such an interesting option available to us and that we know about it. Over the course of its existence, bitcoin has demonstrated itself as a reliable element of the economic and financial system, and I believe it will outlast many financial instruments in the future, including fiat currencies. Fiat money is already becoming less dominant in many countries, while governments’ desire to monitor and control every unit of money their citizens spend may push more people toward alternatives that offer greater financial privacy. Bitcoin could potentially be one of those alternatives.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Government are also a major barrier to Bitcoin being widely accepted as a means of payment. But at the moment, volatility is probably the biggest reason.

El Salvador is a good example. Even though the government allowed people to use Bitcoin instead of fiat, in reality only a few percent of the population use Bitcoin for payments. Most people still prefer fiat and traditional payment methods, and the reason is pretty obvious, Bitcoin is too volatile.

Their government and President made centralized legal tender and adoption in El Salvador years ago, that resulted in a lot of noise and bull run force for Bitcoin market but such things have not lasted too long and widely in their nation years later. Their contributions for Bitcoin bull market two cycles ago were considerable but Bitcoin global adoption has continued and grown bigger even adoption in El Salvador has declined a lot recent years.

I think bitcoin is developing organically and rapidly, and everyone is finding their own convenient way to use it.

Bitcoin technical development rate can be slower than development rates of altcoin blockchains and projects but the important thing is Bitcoin is the best and most secure blockchain. It's technical development is from top-notch developers, best ones in cryptocurrency industry, and faster development rates of altcoin blockchains and projects don't guarantee security and quality.

[lionheart78]

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.

Aren't fiat currencies also being held by institution and yet fiat currencies are still widely used as a mode of payment and is still used in day to day transactions?  I do not think we have to worry about institutions holding Bitcoin and selling it for profit.  I see it as a healthy exchange of hands as long as these institution does not deliberately dump bitcoin into worthlessness when they get a hold of the majority of the circulating supply, (which I think, them dumping ignoring losses is somehow impossible).  The reason why I think it is somehow impossible for these institutions to dump Bitcoin to oblivion is that they are a business entity, and for sure they wanted to protect their profit.

[TheUltraElite]

People have the choice of buying and selling bitcoin, it is up to them to decide whether they want to keep it stored or trade on it.

Bitcoin does not discriminate between individuals, institutions who are looking to profit from bitcoin's price changes are welcome to try it. That does not mean adoption is decreasing. It is the choice of the individuals who are holding bitcoin to choose their stance on long term investment in bitcoin. They can spread the news, ask others to try it or simply appear as the rich guy in the group to make others feel jealous.

Over time bitcoin and its adoption is increasing. 10 years back I could never even think about common people discussing about crypto in public transport, but I do overhear this today.