Yes what progress has it made in adoption, just interested in what metric use to measure? You're saying it needs a Spot ETF amongst other things to get into the trillion dollar market cap, that would indicate the progress thus far (100s of millions of users) hasn't got the adoption to where it needs to be?
Good question. Such metrics are imperfect. If we go back to the start of this debate until now, then the entire market is bigger, the market cap is much bigger (even if it doesn't go up in a straight line due to hype cycles). I'd have to dig out the data but I believe that there are 100 million BTC wallets out there now. From what I recall, there's been a greater distribution of BTC towards regular Joe's in terms of amount of BTC held.
In recent days, I believe we also hit a new ATH in terms of the number of mature bitcoin holders holding BTC over the longer term.
I don't believe it's any one thing. I believe that the ETF can help to broaden the market - and that will be better in terms of reducing volatility. It won't be any cake walk however, as Wall Street will test the asset and try and manipulate it - as they've done successfully with gold. While I don't think Fink & Co. have BTCs best interests at heart, that doesn't mean they can't inadvertently help its progression also.
That's only one item. There are any amount of items that can assist in making further in-roads. From a personal perspective, I want to be able to use the asset as and when I want - for whatever I want. To take it to that point, its network effect needs to continue to grow and with greater network effect comes greater utility.
You said you worked in crypto. I think it would be useful if you let us know your thoughts. Are you pro-decentralized crypto or against, while skeptical or against BTC...or do you not work with properly decentralized projects at all? That would be a useful insight to provide.
I don't believe a spot ETF will be a turning point, it certainly won't bring in the big money. ETFs are retail products mostly, if anything it will just pull retail US investors from the Crypto exchanges to TradFI platforms. This arguably will lessen btc/blockchain adoption because users won't have to interact with the underlying technology (private keys, digital wallets etc).
Big money has never had more access to the market than it does right now, but they aren't jumping in i.e. EDX Markets.
Continues to be hampered by a lack of clarity re. regulation. That said, there are more corporations and funds holding BTC than there were when discussion here started - but it's just a drop in the ocean still. I'm open to correction but a quick google is pointing to around 50 - 60% institutional investor level in ETFs.
As you mentioned AI, it is possible for a new technology to be rapidly adopted, so we can't always hide behind 'these things take time'
I guess the point I made was lost on you. It's the 55 year old overnight success story.
It may be an old debate, but I don't think we have the same understanding of intrinsic value. The advantages you mention for Bitcoin can be debated, but none of those are a form of intrinsic value.
We probably don't.
Ok, fair enough, it looks like we're going to cover this ground a ? time? So intrinsic value - is there such a thing without an evaluator? If covid had wiped us all out and there were no humans here would gold have intrinsic value? My answer to that is no.
In addition to the 'values' I mentioned the asset has, its finite - one of the most finite assets around. If you want to pick away at those 'values' or uses, then have at it if you think that's a good investment of time. But to give you a flavor of how I'll be pushing back, jewelry as a 'intrinsic value' for gold - its one of a number of metals/commodities that could be used for that purpose. And taking that further, I'd wager that its not really such a big deal - its more an extension of its established store of value use case. You can't tell me gold is far superior than anything else relative to that 'intrinsic value' or use case.