And for the record, I've asked for hard, documented, non-cryptocurrency design wins for the blockchain architecture, and nobody either here on Bitcointalk nor anywhere else can show me one. My own 30+ years of experience in computer architecture tells me that the technology has no other viable uses because it will never scale and doesn't solve any real-world problems, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. So far I haven't been.
We aren't here to discuss non-cryptocurrency use cases, so let's not move the goalposts in an unreasonable fashion. You're claiming you don't see any value in Bitcoin and it doesn't solve any real world problems. You're also attempting to assert that institutional investors getting involved somehow has a bearing on the value proposition, which is not the case.
Bank bail-outs/bail-ins are a real world problem. When a bank becomes insolvent, despoitors need to claim back their money back via government schemes. Or, worse still, the government choose to simply take money from the depositors to keep that bank afloat. Bitcoin solves this problem. It cannot become insolvent. If a miner goes under, users don't lose their money.
Inflation is a real world problem. The public have to place trust in their governments, treasuries, mints and central banks to carefully manage their economies and to avoid debasing the currency. No one can make guarantees about the supply because more money can be blinked into existence from nothing. Bitcoin solves this problem. It makes credible and predictable guarantees about supply and inflation.
If you can't see the benefit in any of that, I'd suggest that after 30+ years, it might be time to invest in some new glasses. I'm also far from convinced that institutional investors care about any of this and are just happy that they now get to play in such a volatile market. Traders don't see price plummets as a "bad impression". They see it as an opportunity to buy cheap.