Topic: Why Bitcoin needs institutional money coming in? - page 2. (Read 307 times)
Most of the institutions are attracting to bitcoin as asset and they are investing in bitcoin for bitcoin futures contracts
Actually institutional money has a good impact because it can increase bitcoin and is one of the main drivers of rising prices for bitcoin or cryptocurrency, even though institutional money is not in accordance with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision but with the development of bitcoin or cryptocurrency we also need to evolve which can trigger an increase in the price of bitcoin or cryptocurrecy.
and most likely in the future there will be other revolutions or other unexpected things.
and most likely in the future there will be other revolutions or other unexpected things.
Institutional money is a good thing until it does not take over the market and try to manipulate it for their profit. Obviously the main reason behind the institutional money is better return on investment but we can make use of it during the price rise and it will be ourself or somebody else who will be at the receiving end when they cash out. We have already diverted from the basic reason why bitcoin was crested a sit was th e need of the hour and we can not afford to go back to the beginning so as you mentioned we need to ride with the wave.
I am just curious: Why do we need institutional money coming in to Bitcoin as if it is the one that can rescue Bitcoin from going down? Is this not an obvious sign that as a supposedly P2P currency Bitcoin is failing on this aspect?
Bitcoin is supposed to be in the hands of the people and not with institutions, or so that is the impression I got by reading some articles about Bitcoin and it should be taking the many traditional institutions by storm, right? Now, I am seeing that it is the other way around.
Please correct me if my impressions is really wrong. Or maybe I miss something here. But please don't insult my ignorance...
We need institutional money to come in because we want the price to rise. In case you haven't noticed, Bitcoin has become more of an investment, of a speculative asset, of bears and bulls, and not really about as a currency, of where to spend them as real money.
Institutional money flowing in does not mean a growing adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. It represents the growing demand of Bitcoin as an asset. Is it good? Yes and no depending on how much weight we assign to Bitcoin as a currency or as an asset.
Although I'd be very happy if institutional players would come in and buy Bitcoins in bulk, I'd be a lot happier if ordinary people will buy Bitcoin even in small amounts and spend them.
I am just curious: Why do we need institutional money coming in to Bitcoin as if it is the one that can rescue Bitcoin from going down? Is this not an obvious sign that as a supposedly P2P currency Bitcoin is failing on this aspect?
Bitcoin is supposed to be in the hands of the people and not with institutions, or so that is the impression I got by reading some articles about Bitcoin and it should be taking the many traditional institutions by storm, right? Now, I am seeing that it is the other way around.
Please correct me if my impressions is really wrong. Or maybe I miss something here. But please don't insult my ignorance...
Saying that BTC needs institutional money is not exactly correct. It doesn't. However, it could help. If institutions start dealing with BTC, more individuals are likely to trust them, and finally start using BTC themselves. Institutions might also help the price stabilize, and speed up the process of regulating and adopting cryptocurrencies. All in all, they are not necessary, but they could be helpful in the long run. In the end, the goal is to have the entire world using crypto, be they institutions and companies, or regular people.
Actually institutional money has a good impact because it can increase bitcoin and is one of the main drivers of rising prices for bitcoin or cryptocurrency, even though institutional money is not in accordance with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision but with the development of bitcoin or cryptocurrency we also need to evolve which can trigger an increase in the price of bitcoin or cryptocurrecy.
and most likely in the future there will be other revolutions or other unexpected things.
and most likely in the future there will be other revolutions or other unexpected things.
It doesn't need big companies and institutional investment but as a bitcoin holder myself and I'm sure a lot of other people think this as well, having institutional investments would definitely pump the price and I'm sure everyone would love that.
It's not all as it seems though, a lot of bigger companies don't actually use an exchange but instead choose to buy OTC, for a variety of reasons, for example, to be hidden in the markets.
Also, institutional investors = more companies interested = more adoption!
It's not all as it seems though, a lot of bigger companies don't actually use an exchange but instead choose to buy OTC, for a variety of reasons, for example, to be hidden in the markets.
Also, institutional investors = more companies interested = more adoption!
I am just curious: Why do we need institutional money coming in to Bitcoin as if it is the one that can rescue Bitcoin from going down? Is this not an obvious sign that as a supposedly P2P currency Bitcoin is failing on this aspect?
Bitcoin is supposed to be in the hands of the people and not with institutions, or so that is the impression I got by reading some articles about Bitcoin and it should be taking the many traditional institutions by storm, right? Now, I am seeing that it is the other way around.
Please correct me if my impressions is really wrong. Or maybe I miss something here. But please don't insult my ignorance...
Also, this forum was built to get people informed so nobody takes pleasure in raising insults at you.
Remember, many of the recent people that bought Bitcoin has done this simply as speculators. These people could care less about Bitcoin being used as a currency, because in their countries, Bitcoin is defined as a Commodity and people are supposed to trade commodities. 
In a lot of countries Bitcoin is not accepted as a currency and many people are simply using it as a alternative payment option, like you would use something like PayPal or your Diner's Club card.
The Institutional capital injection would possibly push up the price and these speculators will rejoice when that happens, because they can sell at a large profit.
In a lot of countries Bitcoin is not accepted as a currency and many people are simply using it as a alternative payment option, like you would use something like PayPal or your Diner's Club card.
The Institutional capital injection would possibly push up the price and these speculators will rejoice when that happens, because they can sell at a large profit.
Bitcoin doesn't need institutional money to be successful. Though, having institutional money in helps bitcoin in terms of liquidity and it helps bitcoin finds it's sort of long term "stable" price. Regardless of what people's opinions are, that bitcoin should only be used by the people and such, there's really nothing you can do. Bitcoin can be bought and used and stored by literally anyone, which is one of bitcoin's most important advantages.
I am sure that institutional money can be helping Bitcoin get more stable and yes in its liquidity and these can be helping Bitcoin be more known all over the world and can be a good catalyst for more adoption. Certainly, Bitcoin is fine without the coming of institutional money but since they are coming anyway why not just take advantage of it and enjoy the coming boom ride? I fully understand that Bitcoin should not be all about the money and it should not be seen as just an investment vehicle because Bitcoin is much more than that, but then again we are living in a world where realities should be dealt with. Certainly, there can be many things that Bitcoin or the Bitcoin community can be deviating from the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto but there is a need to evolve and adapt otherwise we can be stagnant and not progress-oriented.
Bitcoin doesn't need institutional money flowing in but everybody that owns Bitcoin wants the money to come in because their holdings would increase in value.
Institutions which are primarily speculators only want profits and if they see that Bitcoin has enough liquidity and potential then they will get involved.
This is basically two fold, it might provide a price increase however look what happened with the Bitcoin futures? It basically was the top and the start of the long bear market. This is why many people back in 2017 were worried and they were correct that they would short the market and cause a crash.
Institutions which are primarily speculators only want profits and if they see that Bitcoin has enough liquidity and potential then they will get involved.
This is basically two fold, it might provide a price increase however look what happened with the Bitcoin futures? It basically was the top and the start of the long bear market. This is why many people back in 2017 were worried and they were correct that they would short the market and cause a crash.
It's not really necessary for bitcoin's growth, but it's pretty useful. Full scale adoption of Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies will require institutional investments and big companies being invested in interested in the product. This might be what a lot of vision are eventually hoping for, but it's not exactly Satoshi's vision.
Don't bother with crypto journalism, except for a couple pockets of good writers, the entire scene is generally all shilling/fudding or just giving plain wrong information.
Don't bother with crypto journalism, except for a couple pockets of good writers, the entire scene is generally all shilling/fudding or just giving plain wrong information.
Don't trust the media. Just look for the facts they presented in the article. Most of the time they just quote opinion from one or two person and made it a headline.
Take a look at how the narrative went before and after the bull run, and you'll see why you should not trust them. Look for the facts, ignore the opinions and headline.
Take a look at how the narrative went before and after the bull run, and you'll see why you should not trust them. Look for the facts, ignore the opinions and headline.
Bitcoin doesn't need institutional money to be successful. Though, having institutional money in helps bitcoin in terms of liquidity and it helps bitcoin finds it's sort of long term "stable" price. Regardless of what people's opinions are, that bitcoin should only be used by the people and such, there's really nothing you can do. Bitcoin can be bought and used and stored by literally anyone, which is one of bitcoin's most important advantages.
I am just curious: Why do we need institutional money coming in to Bitcoin as if it is the one that can rescue Bitcoin from going down? Is this not an obvious sign that as a supposedly P2P currency Bitcoin is failing on this aspect?
Bitcoin is supposed to be in the hands of the people and not with institutions, or so that is the impression I got by reading some articles about Bitcoin and it should be taking the many traditional institutions by storm, right? Now, I am seeing that it is the other way around.
Please correct me if my impressions is really wrong. Or maybe I miss something here. But please don't insult my ignorance...
Jump to: