A consequence of the "adoption" that so many of us want, is that Bitcoin must permeate through big institutions such as universities and branches of government. Indeed this presents the risk of unfavourable changes to Bitcoin, but it's also the force that creates the social permission necessary for widespread adoption.
Fully agree that for large scale adoption, Bitcoin must also be embedded with and work with existing institutions and government. In the end this must happen from tax code compliance to legal frameworks.
The outstanding question though is who will change for who? Will society/government change to match bitcoin? Or will bitcoin be changed to match our current society/government?
Furthermore, I think the "co-opt and control" concerns expressed here and on Reddit are largely misplaced. From the people I've met, whether it's an analyst at the SF Fed, a MIT professor, or an executive at RBC, the feeling I get from them is one of genuine interest and curiosity. Bitcoin is simply a new useful tool and so, they want to understand it and potentially use it. Exactly how it will be used in this post-bitcoin-adoption world is undefined. It's up to us to try and shape it…
Eventually, we may find ourselves deep within the belly of the beast…and at that point I think Bitcoin will have already succeeded.
That is great to hear, but the reality is the people you listed do not determine or shape policy in the end. Policy is determined by regulatory bodies (mostly) and by legislative bodies (somewhat). Take New York for example, Lawsky is none of the above and he is putting New York down a path that makes Bitcoin unworkable there. Other states are taking opposite and positive approaches. At some point it will go federal and it is not known if they will go with the NYDFS's view or something less draconian.
That fact that we can not say for sure who will change for who, is itself cause for concern. IMHO the best method to make Bitcoin secure, is to make it very difficult for governments to force change into. The more this is true the more they have to change for bitcoin and not the other way around.
Having mining be as distributed as possible is one method to help secure Bitcoin, i.e. if >50% of mining is outside the US it is hard for the FED to force change. Having more mining be P2Pool based instead of centralized pools is even better. Another method is to have as many people use bitcoin through their own wallets with the P2P directly. If everyone uses coinbase wallets, it is easy for the feds to force changes in bitcoin usage, but if everyone uses their own wallets it becomes harder to make enough people switch if they don't see a reason to.