Topic: Who plays bigger role in crypto adoption: General public or government ? (Read 421 times)

Between the government and the general public, I believe the government plays a bigger role in crypto adoption.
If the governments of the world were receptive to Bitcoin, I believe its adoption would have grown exponentially compared to what it is today.
In many countries today, we see governments making laws that are not so friendly to crypto users. This alone can discourage a lot of people from using crypto. People do not want to use a technology that would make the government see them as criminals.

If government organizations accepted crypto, even though they don't make it legal tender, but allow people to use it freely and accept it as a medium of payment if they wanted to, more people would use it, but in many countries, people don't disclose it openly that they use crypto because they'll look like criminals to the government.

From my experience, the government usually messes things up. I'm a strong supporter of market freedom, and I oppose government intervention, so in other words I support laissez-faire.

I can give you a number of examples of how governments messed up crypto adoption. It used to be allowed in India, with no regulations present. Then corrupt politicians started taking bribes, so the government blamed... cryptocurrencies and banned them. They wanted to sweep the problem under the rug by claiming that it's not the fault of corrupt politicians, but crypto itself that they could cheat like that and the politicians will magically stop being corrupt once taking bribes in crypto becomes harder.

Crypto adoption is been cheered both the government and the public entirely because each of this sets that you mentioned has a very huge impact or role to pay as far as crypto adoption is concerned, the government has the policy to make crypto a legal tender in their country, but one thing is for that they might not allow institutional adoption for a reason, do you know that any money thats been put in the bank by any institution or individuals is been taxed in one way or the other by the government, the crypto industry can not controlled by the government in totality.

The public which is the audience has a major role to play in the adoption of this digital asset, the individual adoption has been on for many years now and thats has been the fuel behind crypto existence globally, so without the people crypto would have been into extinction despite how the government has been trying to frustrate the market, the people has remain firm to spread the news all over the place.

IMO, everyone is equal and each has a special stake in contributing to crypto development. But also in another aspect, crypto really gives people a way to trust and develop it.

I understand the story of how some viewpoints try to impose or differentiate influences on life, but understand that everything that exists is not owned by either side. Every role has an important contribution to make, and if one is missing, the balance we need is lost. With more and more people accepting crypto, we should express a positive attitude towards it as well as share useful things that can help, besides supporting the government's decision is also very important in development, although not everyone supports it, but let time prove to them the value of crypto.

Both parties have a major role in promoting crypto but I think think case of adoption its the individual that does the most, crypto so far has spread through word of mouth and testimonials of people all over the investment, the government  has played their role by either accepting it or not causing individual to either be involved or not, bit has done no means of spreading news about crypto unless in the case of el salvador that now has platform that teach their citizens about bitcoin that's the only exception I know of government involvement and then the ETF approval that is also a case of government playing a role in mass adoption.

Both the government and individuals have roles to play in the adoption of Bitcoin in a country, and the roles have to complement each other to have a smooth adoption, individuals are the grassroots of Bitcoin hodling, so even if the government puts in place a crypto friendly regulations and the people don't subscribe to it, then it won't be effective. It's mainly individuals and the private sectors that drives the usage of Bitcoin, for p2p transactions, investment and trading purposes. But if a country adopts Bitcoin as a legal tender, it'll massively increase the adoption in that country, because it'll be accepted in every government's public enterprises.

for me its the government for sure as normal people we won’t be able to do anything if our government decides that cryptocurrency shall not be used within the borders of your country especially with countries like north korea or china wherein their laws are strictly upheld i think if they weren’t good with cryptocurrency their citizens would not be able to do anything about it

We as small fish on this community and market, we add some contribution but the impact that we provide isn't that much. What adding to the impact a lot and more are the big institutions and the government. Whenever there are news that comes out, it's always been them that provides the impact. Whilst us, we just go with the flow whatever they do and whatever they say. Providing all the news and laws that they make, we're all just obeying what they tell us because that's how it goes on these type of governments and as well as for this market that seem to be free before but not anymore today because the most influential ones are also here now.

It is true that people are important in all aspects but we're talking about the role here and the impact. We are just receivers and adopters of the impact while the actual movers of it are the government and financial institutions. Because big money are coming in from them but to be honest, we're also the one causing it when we deposit money in the banks, we pay the taxes and everything. The big role is within us but we rarely feel that because the media is all over them and that's making them look like as if they're the most important characters of this chain.

From my point of view, the biggest role in the adoption of cryptocurrency is the general public like us. I think the government plays a supportive role in the adoption of cryptocurrencies. Because every country's financial policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy management are done by the government of the country based on the needs and profitability of the people. Suppose the government in a country accepts cryptocurrency but the general population of that country is not interested in adopting it then the use of cryptocurrency there will not be successful. Countries that use cryptocurrency now do not accept cryptocurrency for a certain time but later allow it to be used after analyzing the needs and benefits of the people. So I think the people play the biggest role in the adoption of cryptocurrency and the government participates as a facilitator and then the government plays an important role in its direction and policy making.

There are some concerns with the use of crypto like it being abused by bad people. But it can also be controlled. Most of the exchanges are moving to the route of KYC. It can be made stronger to eliminate frauds to lesser extent.

There are some countries which played it big on crypto and they were rewarded by it in different ways. It is an example and motivation for other countries as well.

I think the general public have play good role than the government,  if their is a way the government can shut bitcoin down they would have done that even before now. The general public have no bad intentions against cryptocurrency because it is a big advantage to them. It is just of recent that the government is trying to brace cryptocurrency to see if it can be of benefit to the economy.  The general public has played a bigger role since the existence of cryptocurrency.

Both governments and the general public play an important role in crypto adoption.However, its acceptance is high among the general public.Some countries have governments that have banned the use of cryptocurrencies, while others have governments that view cryptocurrencies very favorably and encourage the general public to use cryptocurrencies.Crypto is accepted even in countries where crypto currencies are banned.And this acceptance is observed among the general public.All those who have understood the good side of crypto currency are now involved in it.The general public is involved in both Bitcoin and Altcoins.

We need to understand that the government doesn't even liked the introduction of crypto currencies in the first place because they know it would replace fiat which has been the recognized currency before cryptocurrencies were invented and the government always want something that would be in their control and under their regulations of which cryptocurrency are decentralized as you don't need the interference of government before you can perform crypto transactions so with my explanation you can see that the public requires crypto adoption more than the government

Government have a role to play in bitcoin adoption, aside from the taxes and other regulations that their put out, the only problem with governmentsnof many countries is that, their have a misplaced priority when it comes to their interactions with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in such a way that their have failed to identify their major primary role as government to act as vehicle to safeguard the interest of all and also help to fight crimes that could possibly come from bitcoin usage within the country.

We can't do without regulations as long as bitcoin co-exist with other financial and economic tools in the same market environments, at least cryptocurrency services providers such as vendors and exchanges (centralised) need regulations to build a better secured ecosystem for all players in the industry.

Both the general public and government contributes towards the crypto adoption but in their own ways. The public if they find crypto as something which is good for their future in terms of investment it would invest and thus the adoption will increase but if government puts strict restriction on crypto then it would be difficult for the public to adopt to crypto as we have seen Indians were one of the largest trading population until recently when the government launch some cruel tax policies they stopped using Indian exchanges and shifted to foreign exchanges but now Indian government has banned major foreign exchanges making it difficult for users thus the adoption will be decreased.

Hence I think government does play a vital role for crypto adoption.

I think the general public holds the most control over the crypto market. If the general public sees potential and invest in crypto, the government will follow and monitor this interest very carefully. If reversed, even if the government forcefully implements crypto the general public still has the choice to not follow it and even protest against it.

This is, of course, considering that the country is ran through democratic principles. The government has the final say but the adoption of crypto is on the hands of its users aka the people.

The common people is the driving factor and which is pushing forward to the adoption of decentralized currencies, specially Bitcoin. Keep in mind the governments around the globe are pretty much comfortable with the FIAT system they have been able to manage for centuries now, so they do not have any reason to bet for the adoption of Bitcoin in their jurisdictions.
The only reason why governments are taking Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general in a more serious way lately, it is because they have been forced to by their populations accepting them.
Because of the decentralized nature of those coins, the public administrations cannot do anything to easily stop their circulation, so they feel in the need to have mechanisms like taxation and KYC policies set in place, so they can try to assimilate Bitcoin into the traditional system. The Government of the United States did not wanted to adopt Bitcoin as a taxable asset, they were forced to by the circumstances of the success of Bitcoin.

In the case of El Salvador and other small Republics which are willing to give Bitcoin a chance, for now it is because the leaders of those countries have some ideological alignment with the ideas of Bitcoin or believe their implementation could help with inflation or the economical hardships, those developed countries with little hardships won't consider to embrace Bitcoin, but rather oppose it: the United States & the European Union. At least, that is my personal prescription of the situation.

It's actually the general public because the general public hold the most.

But there are many stupid people use government's news as the decision to buy and sell their cryptocurrency, this make government has a bigger role. When government issued a bad news, they will sell, when the government issued a good news, they will buy.

Both the government and individuals play big roles in cryptocurrency or Bitcoin particularly, we can not say one plays more than the other because of the cases we have seen concerning Bitcoin adoption. I could say the government and the individuals play their roles Viz vice.

As said above by some senior colleagues citizens could decide to adopt bitcoin or use cryptocurrencies as payment method but the government could jeopardize that decision with regulations, although there are cases where the people still find a way to hold cryptocurrencies and use them but initial it could be prohibited. so too government could decide to make Bitcoin legal tender but it has to be the choice of the masses whether to adopt or not.

I concur to this, reality remain that regulatory agencies which stand to be the government has higher power for adoption, the public can adopt but need them to approve because their approval gives more edge to authenticate the usages with fear of anything. You can some of their policy restrictions and ban how it affects the public even when the public is fully ready to adopt Bitcoin and crypto currency. But  I still believe in a government where majority carry the vote interest if the people can persuade the government for adoption that is when 85% pupolation has adopted it government we be left with no option than consider the voice of the people and this can only happens in nation that consider the voice of citizens not like my Nation where the voice of citizens is not hard no matter how they cry loud.

Both government and people are playing a role in crypto adoption. Common people are accepting crypto currency and even if everything is managed if the government of a country does not legalize crypto currency and there are strict restrictions people will never be able to accept crypto currency. The public plays an important role in crypto and the government drives its policies.

each of them play Thier unique and fundamental role in encouraging Bitcoin adoption.

The government have the right to disallow the use of Bitcoin in a certain country and so regardless of the push by a private body or individuals to ensuring that Bitcoin is accepted in a region, if the government doesn't give Thier support it's going to be a one sided adoption. If the government alone takes it adoption seriously without involving the citizens in the whole process, people will assume that Thier is an eaden agenda that the government had in mind and that's Thier reason for pushing for it adoption and so it's clear that advocating for Bitcoin adoption is only going to be a reality when both the government and tg governed cooperates together.

I think the answer is door number three: technical factors.

Bitcoin transactions can cost 30 dollars and take 30 minutes. That technical limitation will do far more than any government could ever do to prevent Bitcoin from being widely adopted as a means of everyday transactions.

As for adoption as an investment... what more do you want? With the ETF, every single investor in the US can buy into a Bitcoin instrument using their existing brokerage account. This is as mainstream as it gets.

The other factor, of course, will be the price of Bitcoin: if more people buy it, then the price will go up, and then... more people will buy it. And that too will be a far bigger factor than any sort of regulations. And by the same token, if the price crashes, then people will hate Bitcoin, and this won't be the fault of anything the government did.

Common people, if you want to call Larry Fink a common person.

Bitcoin is jumping right now because Blackrock is coming closer to setting up a new financial system that would include Bitcoin in various ways. Does this encourage people to buy BTC? Or the opposite? The price increase, that is.

BTC made it to the $65,000 range twice before. Many people lost their shirts... or life savings... when it dumped back down. Do people these days understand how what Fink is doing with Blackrock is different than the past?

Government people are not entirely stupid. They see what Fink is doing. It probably makes them want to invest more than the average commoner does.

Government has the authority to make it happen but it happens only when people are pushing them to do so who is important then I would say both. First should be the users who need to understand why it is important to have monetary system that is decentralised and sooner or later government will have no choice other than accepting their defeat and then the new beginnings happens.

It has to do with the majority of the people, because it is the people that elect those in government, so if majority of the people have agreed to adopt cryptocurrency, I think there is little the government can do to stop it, cryptocurrency buttresses that fact by even being a decentralized currency. The awareness cryptocurrency has gotten across the globe has a lot to do with the common people, because they've been the one's passing this information largely within themselves, and since they constitute a large population, it has helped propagate the good news about cryptocurrency.

I think the need for government to be in any social strata is for them to formulate policies and programs that will better the lots of the people, so if majority of the people are agreed to adopt or invest in cryptocurrency, there is a little or nothing the government can do to stop because it's the people's choice.

Crypto adoption is really driven by the interest of the people, because when the public shows interest interest crypto adoption will  increase rapidly I think it is all about the public zealousness. But the fact that the government also play a vital role in crypto adoption cannot be disputed, the Government regulations can affect crypto adoption by influencing policies that impact on how people use it.

Actually the people play a bigger role in the awareness and followership to bitcoin but ultimately it is the government that will eventually cause the real adoption because of the laws that they will enact that will allow for bitcoin use as legal tender. For example if the government creates the law that all their parastatals and agencies to use bitcoin then the real adoption will start but for now it is still left with the people and that is why it is still in the level that it is now.

So for now the public has higher percentage of awareness creation than the government but the people need the government to have full inalienable control of bitcoin across where it will be regarded as legal tender.

I estimate that the public influences 65% and the government 35%. The reason is: Adoption starts grassroots. Bitcoin's utility and value were first adopted by curious, enterprising people like us. Our interest, demand, and advocacy change market dynamics, increasing acceptance. I recognize the government's important but limited role. Policy and legislation can boost or slow adoption, altering infrastructure and legal acceptance. Remember, who impacts government decisions? The electorate is the majority. Our votes and public discourse shape such policies.

The people plays the game while the government frames the playground. Our passion, investment, and use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies demonstrate our influence. The fact that public acceptance is surpassing government frameworks supports this speculation.

The public plays a much bigger role than the government. Bitcoin had already survived a couple of years and grew in market cap and adoption massively before any government for involved in it, and this was through the efforts of those who, bought and mined it at that time.

If the government turns a blind eye towards crypto and does nothing for or against it, Bitcoin would keep growing. But if the people lost faith or interest in it, there would be no activity on the network.

The government can try to restrict the access of the people to Bitcoin it will restrict its growth, but this does not make them a bigger factor in its growth.

It’s both. Since crypto adoption will never be a thing if government ban the use of it. There’s countries that ban crypto use and this is a clear example of what will happened if government doesn’t play an important role for crypto adoption.

There’s no way only people can push mass adoption without the help of the government since it’s still money and needed to be regulated by the government whether we like it or not. So our only choice to move forward without interruption is if the government will cooperate. Having a complete decentralized in crypto is not really impossible as long as we still need fiat to spend our crypto on buying goods and purchasing other services.

Both. People drive it by using and getting into cryptocurrencies, making it cool. Social media and community vibes as well while the government sets the rules and vibes with regulations. If they're chill, it helps but if not, it can put a damper on things. It's a back-and-forth where what people do affects government move  and vice versa. So whether crypto becomes the next big thing or not depends on this groovy connection between individuals and the government

In my opinion it is the public that plays an important role in adoption the government only regulates it. There is only one case so far where a countries government implement Bitcoin as a legal tender. That ditmean that the public of that country was ready to adopt Bitcoin. It took sometime as the public was not ready as to how to use Bitcoin for thier own benefits. In the same manner thereare countries where the public first started using Bitcoin and slowly a large population started adopting it. Later on the government of those countries started implementing regulations to control and create an atmosphere of trust so that everyone can utilize Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for thier own benefits.

Both. The public, or at least a part of it would probably try it out if the government publicly acknowledged it legally since to the average joe, they probably have no reason to use it if it was only going to get banned. And if the public generates more interest in it, the government would naturally try to accommodate and regulate it according to their laws as much as possible.

Well at some point the government being able to influence its adoption would stop, so I guess it'd probably skew more to the public instead? Especially if you consider how in a sense, people can use crypto with or without the government. The government is just there to make more people use it or have an interest in it due to their legal power.

People play big role in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies adoption. The people that I am talking about are the retail and institutional investors. What role does the government play than to look for ways to generate money from crypto taxes? What I can say is that the government has no role to play in crypto adoption than to use regulations to hinder it.

The roles are complementary. The general public cannot move the price in the same way that institutional investors or governments can do. Investment funds cannot invest in Bitcoin, and not everyone can use it. Bitcoin will turn into something closer to stocks.

Just as the economy needs capital and investment funds, but without the middle class, the world will collapse and all services will stop.

The general public, as you say, is ready and willing to use cryptocurrency. However, regulatory authorities constantly throw a spanner in the works, prohibiting the widespread use of cryptocurrencies in one way or another. Can we talk about the will of the people if, in different countries, regulators either impose a complete ban on the use of crypto or Bitcoin is often in a gray area? And people use one trick or another to use and have Bitcoin, despite the government's other opinion. I don’t see freedom in this, unfortunately.

But still most of the people are behind the money that it will make throughout.

Government make a lot of movments in this regard but still people are at higher stakes.

Some governments are in support for bitcoin adoption and also have encourage for the use of bitcoin by their citizens, such a good example is in El-Salvador, where bitcoin is made a legal tender, Central African Republic and other countries that does not adopt bitcoin as legal tender but permits the use of bitcoin as a legal digital cryptocurrency for making payments.

The other aspect is the people themselves, we cannot say that everyone has completely key into the adoption of bitcoin, we have those that are in support and those that are against, but the majority have the support use of bitcoin because they needed a change in their financial economy, these same people are the ones that have help in the widespread of bitcoin to the other people around them that we continue to have an increasing massive adoption from time to time.


We needed the role of the people and the governments, if the people shows interest in bitcoin as an alternative digital currency, then the government should be ready and able to listen to their demands and grant access, if they don't, we cant because of that go against their law if they kicked against bitcoin completely.

I will say that both the government and the people play a big role in cryptocurrency adoption. The reason why I said this is that the government can choose to ban crypto, to slow the adoption of crypto in that country because majority of the citizens will be scared to buy and use crypto, only few will have the gut to use bitcoin because it is decentralized and only uses p2p payment method. Even at that, they need to stay away from centralized exchange and platforms.

However, if the government is happy with cryptocurrency and knows the benefit that it will bring to the country and the citizen, cryptocurrency will be legal in the country, and government will give chance to institutions that wants to trade in cryptocurrency, which will make more people who are not well enlighten on cryptocurrency have the opportunity to learn, and have the knowledge, so this will make more people adopt crypto.

On the one hand, it is the people's choice to choose the currency that they want to use, because cryptocurrency is an alternative payment method just like bitcoin, so if they decide not to adopt bitcoin, due to lack of knowledge or ignorance, there is nothing that the government can do. This is because it is the citizens money, and nobody has the right to tell you what to do with your money. So the general public plays a big role because if half of the people in the world has bitcoin, you know what that is. Bitcoin will be more valuable than now compare to the number of people that own it.

Who do you think plays a bigger role in crypto adoption ? Will it be common people like you and me . Or does the role is played by government because it is them making monetary policies. I feel people are more important because when it comes to electing the government, even there it is the majority of people which results in final decision.