I was attempting to make a description of the status quo in terms of the reasons why bitcoin advantages regular people rather than institutions, and then you seem to have been making a prescriptive statement out of the subject.
Bitcoin doesn't give any shits about who you are, and you can enter into bitcoin. Similarly, "we" have no choice about who enters into bitcoin, so if BIG institutions want to come into bitcoin, then they can come into bitcoin.
I was just attempting to assert that many of them neither perceive a benefit to enter into bitcoin at this time, but with the passage of time, they are likely going to perceive various benefits to entering bitcoin and they will enter, whether "we" like, want, appreciate or disapprove their entrance into bitcoin or not
I'm trying to draw a line between simple folks and financial institutions
To put it simple, individuals are mostly not restricted by the government in their "investment policies", so to speak. So even if the government (any government, for that matter) frowns upon Bitcoin's use and possession (up to a point of imposing an explicit ban on crypto), people may not give a fuck about what the government would think ("my give a damn's busted")
But this is certainly not the case with financial institutions even if they come to see a lot of benefits and potential in Bitcoin but their respective government is not so pro-Bitcoin as they might want it to be. Indeed, they could try to change such a rogue government, but this would be a different story
It still seems as if we are continuing to talk past each other a bit because even though I accept that there are both existential differences between governments/institutions and individuals, which causes their accountability to be different. In that regard, individuals can do almost whatever they want without having to report to anyone or to get approval, and institutions have differing processes.. and yeah, there may be some tensions between governments/institutions and bitcoin, but I don't see how that really matters in terms of the points that I am making.
I don't disagree with your statement that institutions and governments might be hostile or competitive towards bitcoin and attempt to control bitcoin, but in the end, honey badger will give few if any fucks about that. They are going to be forced into that situation of first they fight you and later they join you.
So maybe in the end, you (deisik) and I don't materially disagree, but we are still framing the various matters and adoption dynamics in different ways. Even though I am agreeing with you to categorize and define institutions and governments in categories different from individuals, I am still suggesting that the very difference of what individuals are and how they interface with governments and institutions will cause them to advantage from bitcoin prior to governments and institutions, and even though there is different timelines in adoption, governments and institutions are going to be more or less forced to come into bitcoin too... but we all may be dead by then, anyhow, even though a progression in the adoption dynamic is going to continue and we are going to be able to witness such progression (the longer we live, the more progression and adoption into bitcoin we are likely to witness).
Anyhow, now I am feeling like I am just repeating myself in various ways.. so I am not sure what points differ between you and me, except maybe different ways of framing the issues and the dynamics and likelihood that we do not really disagree about a lot of the underlying dynamics, motivations or distinctions, but we have differing ways of expressing such..