CMIIW, maybe it's too late to push narratives like Bitcoin as a medium of exchange and for things related to payment. If we want Bitcoin to be widely adopted because of these things, maybe it wouldn't work as effective as before. Or maybe it would work, very segmented, and can't be broad. There are many blockchains and stablecoins that can be friendlier to support people's daily transactions. Institutions disrupt the "Bitcoin movement" better with stablecoins, compared to Bitcoin itself to disrupt the global financial system.

IMO, the better way to make Bitcoin well adopted broadly is by making it friendlier with institutions, bigger players, making it closer to casual people as a financial product. It's not a movement anymore, it's an industry now. People need to get more benefits than just a store of value in the hope that it will win against inflation. People want to make their money productive. BTCFi for me is a good potential thing for Bitcoin. If the community didn't feel skeptical and think about Bitcoin being dictated by centralized authority, and this, and that, then it maybe can help. But in reality, people seem to avoid things like that, BTC staking, Lending & Borrowing, BTC as collateral, etc. because in the end it will be contradictory again with not your keys, not your coins. Unless there's a big change in Bitcoin, which I think will not be approved by the majority either.

Casinos accepting bitcoin is not related to only the forum. And it is true that casino is among the market to accept and embrace cryptocurrency. I think this is because of the nature of casino. Sometimes there's sanction, geographical block and bank restrictions and gamblers will have no option than to use crypto.

This daily usage is visible but not to compare to institutional involvement. Institutions deal on millions of dollars and their effects could be readily seen in the market than daily usage.

But in my opinion, I'll say a balance is okay. Adoption should be both on daily utility and institutional investment as we may call it.

Well casinos are the first use case of Bitcoin, and so it started there and it continue up to this time. So there's nothing wrong with it us gamblers using it. And as in the case of our local e-wallets, you can exchange your Bitcoin to fiat and then you can almost do anything with it.

Pay our basics necessities, like internet, water and electric consumption. Although the catch is that it's with a 3rd party and not a direct P2P. But still that could be the closest thing that we can see as far as adoption goes.

What I think is making people not happy with the involvement of institutional investors is that they are manipulating the market very worst than how the market use to be because they have the money to do it. The pump and dump are now looking too manipulated and this is making people see the market as a tool in their hands and it is making people not waiting them anymore regardless of what they bring. People are not getting angry that they are buying up many Bitcoin since we go not have the money to do that but they should stop causing panic in the market when they threaten to sell and cause the market to be talking.

If most of the retails have the advantage of big players they would done worst, i mean manipulate the market so people would dump and then they buy cheaper, Bitcoin has become so valuable that people who see a potential to be more valuable want more of it, so it's in the hands of every individual holder to not fall for their manipulations, whenever you hear that a big player sold, don't sell too but keep holding or buy more, it's as simple as that. Moreover those big players didn't force anyone to sell their coin.

Yeah, this can also be countered by the reason why the Bitcoin market is volatile.
But if you look into it closely, then you will notice that this is not just the sole reason why the Bitcoin market is volatile and fluctuates from time to time. There can be many other reasons for volatility in the market, but right now, for example, if I have to add another reason for your understanding, then the trading space is also a reason why the market always fluctuates from time to time.

And if you attach this factor of the Bitcoin market to its demand and supply fundamentals, then you will realize that the more active behaviour of traders is also making it volatile. This is my point of view on this. DYOR! Additionally, I would like to ask what your own thoughts say what can be a mojor reason of volatility? Any random reason?

I don’t think it has to be either. Institutional holding gives Bitcoin deeper liquidity and legitimacy, while everyday utility proves people actually need it.

The interesting middle ground is BTC becoming productive without having to sell it. Lending against native BTC through TBV, for example, could turn long-term holdings into usable capital while keeping the underlying asset exposure.

That feels like a more meaningful definition of adoption than simply measuring how many entities are holding BTC.

Global trade continues to operate with fiat as a central point of exchange, and the most dominant currency in the world is the dollar. Bitcoin is a global financial system. Although the business system was built around the dollar in the past, times are changing and this change will increase in the future. The adoption of products, services, and institutional adoption, the number of investors, and the strategy of holding Bitcoin are increasing and this scope will increase in the future.

If individual and institutional holders hold Bitcoin for a certain period of time, its price will gradually increase and skyrocket because the shortage of supply causes the price to increase. Just as the price of a product increases when there are more buyers than sellers.

I believe there's a meaningful distinction between asset adoption and monetary network adoption of Bitcoin. If an institution purchases BTC and holds it on its books. That in itself can drive more demand and demonstrate increased acceptance, but they might not be touched for years. That's adoption done as an investment. Rather than as money. A better indicator of monetary adoption. For me is increased actual economic activity such as merchants using btc. People using it for remittance. Or businesses choosing to do so over other payment options when it gives them a competitive edge. Legitimacy and liquidity can be granted by institutional adoption, but the usage is what shows utility.

I just wanna point out that Bitcoin has been seen as speculative and investment asset for a long time already. Market was pretty much treating Bitcoin as an asset and an store of value even before ETFs approval and institutional involvement.

That also means it's not just those wealthy guys who care about the money. Most of us buy and hold Bitcoin because we expect it to go up in value, not just because we wanna use it for everyday transaction.

We are not that different from them.