The post Is Bitcoin Becoming Too Institutional appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin For years, the loudest critics of institutional Bitcoin adoption have warned that corporations would eventually dominate the supply and undermine the very decentralization that defines the network. Key Takeaways: Treasury executives argue institutional Bitcoin buying increases decentralization rather than reduces it. Corporations now hold about 6.7% of BTC supply, and ETFs control roughly 7.3%. Analysts say large custodians influence market liquidity but do not control the Bitcoin network itself. Yet the firms buying Bitcoin now are making a very different claim — they believe their activity is dispersing power, not concentrating it. At industry conferences, treasury executives say the fastest way to decentralize Bitcoin is to make access unavoidable. Their line of thinking: if every major financial institution is pressured by demand to offer Bitcoin custody, the network becomes harder to monopolize — not easier. Once global banks and brokers provide direct access for both retail and corporate clients, reliance on a handful of crypto-native custodians fades. A Decentralization Paradox That argument feels counter-intuitive when stacked against the raw numbers. Corporate treasuries and ETFs were once a rounding error in supply distribution. Today, they represent a meaningful force. Recent treasury mappings show companies collectively holding roughly 6.7% of circulating BTC, while ETFs hold even more — about 7.3% of the total supply, amassed in under two years. Consolidation of that magnitude is what opponents point to when sounding the alarm. But analysts tracking ownership dynamics say numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. They argue that while coins inside ETF vehicles appear centralized, the economic claim over those coins belongs to millions of individual investors rather than to a single controlling entity. From that standpoint, Bitcoin’s governance and consensus remain unchanged even when custody funnels upward. Influence vs. Control The technical layer of Bitcoin is not at risk —… The post Is Bitcoin Becoming Too Institutional appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin For years, the loudest critics of institutional Bitcoin adoption have warned that corporations would eventually dominate the supply and undermine the very decentralization that defines the network. Key Takeaways: Treasury executives argue institutional Bitcoin buying increases decentralization rather than reduces it. Corporations now hold about 6.7% of BTC supply, and ETFs control roughly 7.3%. Analysts say large custodians influence market liquidity but do not control the Bitcoin network itself. Yet the firms buying Bitcoin now are making a very different claim — they believe their activity is dispersing power, not concentrating it. At industry conferences, treasury executives say the fastest way to decentralize Bitcoin is to make access unavoidable. Their line of thinking: if every major financial institution is pressured by demand to offer Bitcoin custody, the network becomes harder to monopolize — not easier. Once global banks and brokers provide direct access for both retail and corporate clients, reliance on a handful of crypto-native custodians fades. A Decentralization Paradox That argument feels counter-intuitive when stacked against the raw numbers. Corporate treasuries and ETFs were once a rounding error in supply distribution. Today, they represent a meaningful force. Recent treasury mappings show companies collectively holding roughly 6.7% of circulating BTC, while ETFs hold even more — about 7.3% of the total supply, amassed in under two years. Consolidation of that magnitude is what opponents point to when sounding the alarm. But analysts tracking ownership dynamics say numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. They argue that while coins inside ETF vehicles appear centralized, the economic claim over those coins belongs to millions of individual investors rather than to a single controlling entity. From that standpoint, Bitcoin’s governance and consensus remain unchanged even when custody funnels upward. Influence vs. Control The technical layer of Bitcoin is not at risk —…