A couple prominent Bitcoin adoption leaders gathered on the Nakamoto Stage at The Bitcoin 2026 Conference, making the case that an unusual industry dynamic — one where direct competitors openly collaborate — may be the defining feature of the current institutional push into the digital asset.

The panel featured David Bailey, CEO of Nakamoto Inc., Alexandre Laizet of Capital B, and Dylan LeClair of Metaplanet, moderated by George Mekhail of Bitcoin for Corporations.

Bailey started his talk to frame Bitcoin as something closer to a decentralized corporation, arguing that rising valuations at peer companies lift the broader ecosystem rather than cannibalize it. He pointed to UTXO Management’s investments in both Capital B and Metaplanet as a concrete expression of that philosophy — a structure that blurs the line between investor and collaborator.

LeClair echoed the sentiment, arguing that Bitcoin differs from virtually every other industry in that participants actively share strategies and build on each other’s work. Laizet opened his remarks by thanking his fellow panelists and calling them inspirations in advancing corporate adoption — language that would be striking at almost any other industry conference.

Institutional barriers constrain bitcoin

Despite the optimism, the panel was candid about the structural obstacles still ahead and firmly made it clear that bitcoin “is still early.” LeClair offered a striking data point: he estimated that 99% of institutional capital cannot currently access Bitcoin or Bitcoin ETFs due to mandate restrictions that confine many funds to fixed income or specific asset classes.

For LeClair, that constraint is precisely what makes the current moment still early — and why infrastructure, not ideology, is the central challenge.

He described hyperbitcoinization not as a singular breakthrough event but as a slow-building process that demands institutional plumbing — custody solutions, compliant products, and regulatory clarity.

He credited Michael Saylor with identifying and beginning to address that gap for traditional finance, and pushed back on what he called a paradox: Bitcoiners who expect extreme price appreciation while simultaneously rejecting the institutional participation that would make such valuations possible.

Bailey reinforced that framing, noting that only a few hundred companies currently hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets, and that Strategy is still in the early stages of charting a path that others are only beginning to follow. He argued that every economic actor will ultimately need to engage with Bitcoin, and that any view excluding a subset of participants runs counter to the asset’s foundational properties.

“For us to have hyperbitcoinization happen… every economic agent in the world is going to have to use bitcoin,” Bailey said.

Laizet laid out Capital B’s approach as one designed to meet institutional investors where they are. He highlighted BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETP and the firm’s growing roster of institutional clients as live examples of European investors gaining meaningful Bitcoin exposure through compliant channels.

For clients unable to tolerate Bitcoin’s volatility directly, he said digital credit products offer an alternative pathway — structured instruments that provide exposure without requiring full price risk.

Laizet was notably bullish on the financial services layer being built around Bitcoin, arguing that holders will increasingly need institutions willing to extend loans against their Bitcoin positions — allowing access to capital without forcing a sale. He framed this as a matter of respect for the asset: users, he said, want financial partners that treat Bitcoin as collateral worthy of retention, not one to be liquidated at the first opportunity.

Bitcoin is infiltrating traditional finance

Bailey offered perhaps the panel’s sharpest rhetorical turn in discussing Bitcoin’s relationship with legacy finance. He argued that because Bitcoin’s underlying technology is immutable, no financial institution — including BlackRock — can alter its properties. The dynamic, he said, runs only one direction: “Bitcoin changes BlackRock,” he said.

He acknowledged a growing divide inside traditional finance between institutions that are embracing Bitcoin and those resisting it, describing advocates as “barbarians at the gate.”

That divide, he argued, makes it urgent to build a large institutional investor base capable of influencing policy and shaping the rules of the financial system in Bitcoin’s favor.

Bailey suggested that critics of BlackRock’s involvement today will face a more formidable challenge when central banks, including potentially the Federal Reserve, begin acquiring Bitcoin.

Mekhail, moderating, added context on the timeline, noting that Bitcoin for Corporations exists to support companies navigating this entry point — and warning that the window to be genuinely early in the corporate adoption cycle is narrowing faster than many realize.