Bitcoin (BTC) may not be “living up to expectations,” one of its best-known supporters from the finance world has warned as prices stagnate.

In a Twitter discussion on April 20, Peter Brandt pointed to low corporate interaction as an indicator that Bitcoin was not having the revolutionary impact its supporters hoped for.

Brandt: I accept BTC store-of-value premise

He suggested that while he understands the idea of Bitcoin being a store of value and an escape from fiat hegemony, it remains a fringe phenomenon.

“The ‘store of value’ premise – I can accept this,” part of one post reads. 

“What % of global commerce is conducted through cryptos? How many multi-national corps have line items in financials for BTC?”

Brandt was writing as BTC/USD dipped slightly from $7,000 as the United States oil markets abruptly fell through zero to hit negative prices.

Limited sensitivity to oil meant that Bitcoin averted bigger losses, while proponents argue that the incoming block reward halving will secure its upward trajectory.

As CryptoNewspeople reported, it was “The Bitcoin Standard” author Saifedean Ammous who most recently reiterated the idea that a 50% drop in new coins will keep current price levels intact, even if demand also falls 50%.

“This does not make me a hater”

For Brandt, however, it appears that despite the mining shake-up argument, a lack of real-world interaction was cause for concern. 

In another tweet, he summarized:

“My only question is whether Bitcoin is actually living up to its high expectations. This question does NOT make me a hater.”

A further comment described Bitcoin’s technology as “so solid.”

According to one theory, major enterprise — especially finance — switching to Bitcoin voluntarily would be a self-inflicted wound. 

As RT host Max Keiser continues to note on his Keiser Report current affairs show, banks and the broader “banking class” are the main beneficiaries of government economic policy, and have even moved to control it in recent decades.

The bigger and more well connected a company, the easier it is to secure a bailout from the government, using fresh unbacked dollars printed at its behest. At the same time, failing smaller companies see their equity and assets transferred back to the banking system.