I think it’s better we distinguish between bitcoin adoption as an investment asset and bitcoin adoption as money. ETFs, institutional investors, companies and banks holding bitcoin are certainly sign of growing acceptance, which can definitely improve the liquidity. But if an institution simply buys bitcoin in billions and hold on a balance sheet to later sell for fiat, then I’ll regard it as bitcoin is being used as an investment asset. And that is adoption actually but it’s very different from someone using to bitcoin to pay merchants, or making cross border payments Wch can move value without relying non any traditional intermediaries.

Personally, I wouldn’t say institutional adoption is better than everyday utility, because to me I think they actually measure different things, if the goal is to prove that bitcoin is becoming a legitimate financial asset, then institutional adoption is significant, but is the goal is to prove that bitcoin can work or function as permissionless global money m, then actual economic  usage should be arguably more direct metric. So when I hear bitcoin adoption is growing, te question that cross my mind always is adoption for what purpose ? Is it holding bitcoin as an asset? Or using bitcoin as everyday money to settle transactions.

No one will stop us from our purpose and reasons for investing in Bitcoin but to me institutions involvement is making the market look like a  manipulative field. This institutions target long term goals and are less concerned about it's daily utility all the picture is the big market and how they can control the volatility to their advantage either through push or dump approach. Traders are only concerned with short term profits the ones truly keeping the network going are the p2p vendors.

I think we all need all kinds of adoption in Bitcoin. At first, Bitcoin started with individual adoption, and at that time, so many people were being skeptical about Bitcoin. However, institutional adoption of Bitcoin has opened the eyes of many people to see the importance of Bitcoin.
Institutional adoption of Bitcoin focuses on investing and holding large amounts of Bitcoin, but this has not changed how people use Bitcoin. There are some people who still spend Bitcoin as an everyday currency for different purposes. Institutional adoption of Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more recognition.

The utility of Bitcoin is all about the usage of Bitcoin, like Cross border transactions, peer to peer transaction which anybody holding Bitcoin can make use of but when it comes to adoption of Bitcoin, we are actually talking about the acceptance of Bitcoin, and the acceptance of this institutional investors has given Bitcoin an edge for wide spread adoption, many individuals now believe that Bitcoin is a legitimate digital asset. Before now when Bitcoin was in it's initial stage , just very few individuals believed in Bitcoin, but as time goes on institutions began to see the real value of Bitcoin, and start investing in it as it increases in value, and reduces in volatility, so this institutional involvement, countries involvement too is what is increasing Bitcoin adoption.

Hmm honestly I'm hard to choose about which one is better because both test different theses of Bitcoin, institutions hold that Bitcoin as an asset that will be maintained in the long run to store value while everyday use it means someone uses Bitcoin as money (means of payment), both have different purposes although both forms of adoption.
But on the other hand, in general, most people prefer to make Bitcoin as a store of value in the long term and has proven to be profitable.

But in reality, the both institution and the our everyday utility are actually works in collaboration, because the two of them has thier own biggest roles to play, the institutional increases the people's confidence and the trust towards Bitcoin investment while the those using it everyday increases the bitcoin adoptions, that's if they must not have to change the bitcoin to their own currency before making use of it.
Because this are common individuals that gives bitcoin a forum to be existing outside the investment assets, if at all I can still say that the both are still important in bitcoin, since both of the institutional involvement and everyday utility has thier own roles to play alongside the bitcoin. Also an investors may prefer holding the bitcoin for long-term growths while making used of it as everyday utility makes sense to some people. Though many people can also bring thier opinions, if not I must say that everyday utility beings more or genuine adoption towards Bitcoin.

Institutional involvement aided in giving bitcoin more relevance and adoption because most of these institutions buy bitcoins in large quantities which is impactful towards the growth of the market. If they sell, it shouldn't bother us because of course they are not investing to hold bitcoin forever. It is certain that institutional investors will sell their bitcoins but they won't sell all.

As for everyday utility, it has not shifted because there are organizations that makes payments in bitcoins and there are also individuals that still do businesses in bitcoins. There may not be a balance between using bitcoin as everyday utility and institutional involvement, but they both play important role in bitcoin adoption.

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.

One angle that is easy to miss is that institutional adoption doesn’t necessarily mean that more economic activity is happening on Bitcoin itself. ETFs, custodians and other financial products could give investors exposure to Bitcoin without them ever making any transaction. In that sense, it could become more widely adopted as an asset while a growing share of the actual trading and price discovery happens off chain.
Beyond that, bitcoin’s block subsidy keeps declining, so overtime the network will depend on transaction fees to compensate miners. What happens when more economic activities are settled off chain? And how much of that activity ultimately creates demand for scarce bitcoin block space?

That creates a distinction between simply adopting “Bitcoin” and adopting the “Bitcoin network”, what I’m saying basically is that the first can grow rapidly without necessarily increasing the usage of the second. For those reasons, I think that makes institutional adoption a less straightforward metric than simply looking at how much BTC institutions hold.