Topic: How will institutional investors impact Bitcoin? (Read 217 times)

 It is true that institutional investors can provide support to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies because there is no other asset that is promising right now. Stock are extremely inflated and Bitcoin is seeing more interest than gold, people are even looking for way to exist stocks and put it into other asset that can yield more that 10% annual returns. The whales have huge impact in the crypto space, whether they like bitcoin or not, they have to face the fact that bitcoin is the fastest horse in the race for profit.
 Buying Bitcoin to hedge against high monetary inflation is a better decision than buying gold, despite the government trying to suppress Bitcoin, they will do everything to see that that fiat system works but due to inflation and all traditional asset will not yield anything in the coming year, so switching to Bitcoin for a even small portion of their portfolio is a necessity in my opinion. The current period is a good one because Bitcoin is promised a very strong bull market in the coming years. We must also take advantage of it.

I do not totally agree with this because the goal of the institutions is to make money from their investment. So they don't think of investing to bring stability and liquidity to Bitcoin.

Honestly, institutions are the reason why crypto is volatile. Those impulsive movements or big candlesticks that we see in the chart of Bitcoin, the institutions are the reason for that. So they can give hype to the market but they can't give stability especially to alts that have a very small marketcap.

I believe that ordinary investors can bring stability to Bitcoin because they only hold small amounts of Bitcoin. If someone wants to sell their investment, they cannot dump the price.

They are like double-edged swords, capable of fostering both bullish and bearish sentiments. Their actions are rather perilous, as only their circle possesses the knowledge of their next moves, having meticulously considered their ramifications. An instance of the misuse of institutional power in the Bitcoin market is indeed unavoidable.

Undoubtedly, we have all experienced that market movements are not solely driven by supply and demand. There are several other factors influencing market fluctuations and candlestick patterns, and these factors are none other than a group of individuals wielding substantial wealth. Manipulation can occur through significant injections of funds into the market.

Stay vigilant, for even those who appear to be staunch supporters can become hidden adversaries.

Institutional investors can provide great support to spread awareness and advocate in favor of law and regulations for startups co-related with bitcoin. But we should have kept in mind that institutions actions are profit-driven and want to pass laws in favor of their own interests, which sometimes may not align with the interest of retail investors like us. However their influence can provoke politicians to pass laws in their favor like lower tax rate, low interest over borrowing etc.

Institutional investors are actually a trouble... Investors want money, fiat money. In case of massive investments the overall blockchain system is likey to become a Ponzi scheme, just a tool to get fiat profit... Global fiat investors (predominantly dollar-backed global banks and tycoons) will surely start dictating their own rules of cryptotrading, which will eventually bring the whole cryptoworld to its knees. Actually, now we can witness the process which is likely to be the beginning of exactly this scenario: adoption level is still low, but the "paracrypto" system is being pumped with dollars, which are not given for free: capital investors want their money back with a share, and they are going to take it from crypto using all the possible ways. They are not interested in adoption, they are interested in dollar profit and in sustaining their control over global financial system.

However institutional investors are also people that have a lot of power when it comes to the policies that are passed around the world, which means they could pass laws that favor them at the expense of everyone else, so it is important to be alert about it as this is likely to happen, also institutional investors can join hands and try to manipulate the market so the weak hands sell their coins for a low price and they can take advantage of them, so not everything is positive when it comes to those institutional investors becoming part of this market.

How would they bring stability? The main reason if instability is that there is no approximation of how much Bitcoin should really be worth. So when it goes up or down by 10-20%, the market doesn't know if it's a good opportunity to buy/sell, or if the movement was justified. If institutions merely hold Bitcoin and don't actively trade it in a way that would stabilize the price, then they would have no effect. But they might as well be destabilizing Bitcoin by amplifying the existing price movements.

So would Bitcoin be a decentralized design at the beginning and a centralized design at the end if the direction is as you imply?

If that's the case, maybe El Salvador will be a lucky country because they have started collecting Bitcoin now. And if they are able to have 30 percent of the total Bitcoin supply then they can monopolize it.

That assertion at least has a confirmation, in terms of the Txs. But institutional investors are like the possibility of double spending, if you understand my metaphor, I hope so.

It is sad to think that real adoption,the people,  which should be massively accessing the "right" without conditions, is not aware of the economic event we are experiencing, and those user who know bitcoin; "praying" (not all, but a large majority ) so that the institutions "impose themselves."

Institution investors will bring centralization to the industry, institutional investors would want their money to be protected since they'll be coming in with a large sum of money then regular investors so they'll want the market to be regulated. The institutional investors have power and connection so they'll use that to draw the attention of lawmakers to the market. Their involvement in the market will bring about more mainstream adoption and popularity but it'll come at the cost of decentralization of the industry. They'll want to take control of the market so they can manipulate it as they do to other markets that they're fully Involved in.


That's not what we want, maybe that's what you want but the industry want Bitcoin to get more global adoption by going mainstream, if we're talking about profit we'll make more when Bitcoin gets more popular because that'll exposed the currency to more investors and they'll invest thereby increasing the value of Bitcoin and we (the early investors that bought Bitcoin and hodl) get more profits. More global adoption does us more good in everyway because we get to get more opportunities to not only Invest in Bitcoin but spend our wealth globally without having to convert it first to fiats. When Bitcoin get globally accepted, you can use your Bitcoin more frequently than how you can use it now because there'll no limitations.

Many individuals and institutions are investing in areas where institutional investors are investing. This means that the number of investors is increasing, which is positive for Bitcoin. To invest in Bitcoin, some investors follow the institutions and invest with them. This means that many non-institutional investors brought in by institutions are also investing in Bitcoin.

The more people invest in Bitcoin, the more people it will reach. The more users or investors there are, the more benefit there will be for the spread of Bitcoin. So in short, I would call it a win-win situation.

I think we've seen that institutional investors can pump the price and I suppose I agree that they can help make Bitcoin a more reputable investment, but that doesn't mean that they bring stability. Musk invested billions into Bitcoin, which drove the price up, but then pulled out those billions just as easily, which has the opposite effect. So in terms of stability, I don't think they make a difference. I also don't think that we need institutional investors for Bitcoin to grow, as there's plenty of regular people who aren't involved but can potentially get involved. I don't mind the big guys, but I don't want to overestimate their importance.

That fact is already known however what’s making us worried is the way they are operating their businesses. With ever growing restrictions from the governing bodies they are enforcing users to fill up KYC, create more authentication through banking process and it’s pretty much turning into a decentralised bug. Imagine how they started and where they are leading themselves. Currently institutional investment is nothing but a brokerage between a bank and a customer. That’s how I have started to look at them. Are they holding enough to create sustainable ecosystem for bitcoin? May be not but they do have some influence on the resistance for sure. Right now we have no idea from what side they are working but they are going to have Double role in the entire bitcoin-centralisation phenomenon in the future. Mark this as we move further.

Exactly, especially if most of the accumulation were hodl and having a diamond hands. When that time happens, it would be hard for most of the people to have short term investment to Bitcoin since the market is stable and has less volatility. It might be a good thing as it could be a used digital currency worldwide but the investors and the traders wouldn't be happy with this one since volatility is one of the factor for them to have profits as they take advantage to it. But for sure mass adoption to Bitcoin would literally took years cause despite the technology and mass media, there's still few people acknowledging the potential and benefits of Bitcoin.

Big capital in, big capital out.
Big positive news, big negative news.

They are what you will get from institutional investors, two sides of a coin but if you manage your capital well like don't use all money for investment, you will feel less negative impacts from institutional investors. By that you can survive through most hardest bearish market time and can see light at the end of each bear market cycle to harvest profit.

Who wants Bitcoins to become mainstream? We all are happy with the current status of bitcoins. We know how valuable Bitcoins are and we know how to take maximum profits from it. Bitcoins are limited in number and hence very rare. So we don’t want it to become mainstream or become legalised. We will just accumulate the coins and when the price goes up we will sell in very high price.

You are likely late in the party about that news that they've been here since the 2021 bull run or even earlier. These institutions are the reasons when there's a bad news, they're the ones to quickly spread it through FUD that they say.

Although they can really help to legalize Bitcoin into a country but there's no need for that. I know that there's a big impact for the adoption and price of it but it's just going to break what the purpose that it's been serving for the long time and that's about decentralization.

The very impact that they can give to people is about introducing it. Most people don't want to believe anymore with such magic internet money as they say because of the proliferation of internet scams, so that's how they'll get in.

We might actually be saying the same thing as I do not notice any difference between your narration and examples from mine. The involvement of institutional investors will bring some form of stability and liquidity in a way that one person selling will not have devastating impact on the price like we notice in the case of Tesla.

The more the institutional cashflow Bitcoin enjoys, the less the chances of price fluctuations and market manipulation. 

It is only partially correct. Remember when Tesla sold 75% of its bitcoins and the market reacted downwards. The market is not that mature yet. If tomorrow a couple of major companies like Apple and Amazon announce that they are buying bitcoin and will accept them for payment, the price doubles in a week. And vice versa. If Saylor for example says it changes its mind and starts selling bitcoins we will be at levels below $20,000 in a few days.


Yes, but that is a long way off.

If bitcoin actually ends up achieving mass adoption, then gold-levels of stability(or even more stable, if bitcoin becomes far bigger than gold) is going to be inevitable. Bitcoin will be a boring asset, and that's a good thing.