⚡ Institutions vs. OG Bitcoiners: A Culture Clash in Real Time ⚡

[kevin1]

Preston Pysh (Ego Death Capital) put it bluntly:
“Am I being scammed, like all the other scams that preceded this wave?”

That’s the sentiment many early Bitcoin adopters are feeling as institutional money floods in.

For the Bitcoin “psychopaths” who hodled through 70–80% drawdowns, stacked sats in cold storage, and pushed BTC past a $1T market cap, Bitcoin was never about derivatives, ETFs, or balance sheet optics. It was about sovereignty.

Now? BlackRock, Fidelity, and Wall Street traders are treating BTC like just another asset to hedge with futures contracts.

The cultural divide:

OG Bitcoiners → Self-custody maxis, skeptical of anything that smells like TradFi.

Institutions → Looking at BTC as reserve collateral, a macro hedge, or just another line item in a diversified portfolio.

Pysh predicts both worlds will coexist:

Institutions will use Bitcoin “very differently” than individuals.

But Bitcoin’s ethos — deep skepticism, questioning everything — won’t disappear.

The irony? Institutional demand may be the reason BTC rockets to six figures… even as it reshapes the culture that got it there.

Question for the room:
Is Bitcoin stronger when it’s mainstreamed by institutions — or when it’s protected by the cypherpunk faithful?

[rafihasan]

Bitcoin’s strength has always been sovereignty and self-custody. Institutions can drive price, but they’ll never capture the ethos that made BTC revolutionary

[Maxwell]

Interesting divide: mainstream adoption brings liquidity and legitimacy, but the cypherpunk culture keeps the network resilient and decentralized. Both matter, just differently

[Nahiar806]

I see it as a balance—institutions may push BTC to new highs, but the true power remains with those who hold their keys and question everything