Of course if the BTC price will behave like in the past and the media and community will behave the same as in the past. And that you will not fall into one of the traps and start panicking.

O ile nam wiadomo, to nie o 1 mln BTC, a ich równowartość w USD (bo to sprawa precedensowa). Więc tutaj chodzi o to, że ugoda (wycofanie sprawy) będzie oznaczała, że rodzina Kleimana: zrzeka się bezpowrotnie roszczeń względem BTC i nie będzie dalej mogła domagać się weryfikacji, czy CSW jest Satoshi czy nie - więc wizerunkowo będzie to przedstawiane jako potwierdzenie, że tym samym potwierdzili fakt, iż CSW to Satoshi. Kolejna pompa dla BSV i potencjalnie mocny cios dla wartości BTC.

Czy są tam jakieś inne haki? Można przypuszczać, że tak.

The point is that with BTC you can send money wherever you want if you have a correct wallet address, and this includes countries where they do not want your money to be sent to (like North Korea/Iran or specific individuals being on the bank wire transfer ban under UN security council decisions). It requires more effort to track it. and as well you can make OTC transaction for huge amounts, what potentially could mean you are hiding from taxes.

What about religious decentralized jurisdictions without clear monarchy like caliphate/pope?

This is because with such low price, even the biggest miners will find it hard to survive, and as such, they could abandon BTC for good. And as it is already known as the store of value and legendary crypto, it is hard to believe that any country would have risked the death of BTC, which would be a true mass-extinction of most of the cryptos.
Their new, local cryptocurrency would have been heavily struck by such events as well.
As well if we are speaking of illegal cryptos - it can be predicted that by 2032 most of the global authorities will outlaw privacy coins. This is what they can do.

What we could fear more is that authorities would create a list of "speculation coins", which will not be used as a digital currency but only an investment, which trading requires a license from you.

And both of them had been Nazi sympathisers.

FATF recommendations are of global application. And it can have an impact leading to the situation, where small individual traders (or people who wanted to buy crypto as a way of paying for something) will have to go for lengthy and very detailed verification procedure - and lose their interest in the crypto as such. On the same moment, institutional investors focused upon speculation will be more interested (as for them regulations means more predictability and trust in the whole environment).
As a result, the crypto price can become more stable (banks trading bots), and for individuals who do not trade with leverage, it may not be interesting that much anymore.

This may lead to several possible outcomes, which all have a huge impact on cryptocurrencies as such:
1) If you have used cryptocurrency for buying something, you may be forced to present invoice/receipt for such action/contract. Here we can argue - should companies have in such case registered wallets working more or less in the same way as bank accounts? What about defining the cryptocurrency value for VAT purposes? With fiat currencies, these are usually foreign exchange rates as published by the central bank. In this scenario there is a slight chance, the authorities could start accepting tax payments in crypto (eg. 23% of BTC amount, not its value in eg. USD).
2) Taxation reforms - as speaking of the price itself, should taxation apply to profit made per each transaction, or annual summary? What in situation like this: you bought 10 BTC at the 2018 bottom ($4000/1BTC) and sold it at 2019 highs ($12000/1BTC), next bought at the end of the year 15 BTC for $8000 each. In this case what should be taxed? The total value of BTC at the end of the year, its price per each coin?

Tutaj dochodzi jeszcze jedna ważna sprawa, związana z anglosaskim systemem prawnym (precedensami). Bardzo często by zyskać na czasie, nie tracić reputacji i nie dać sędziom materiału do wyrobienia sobie nazwiska nową, nietypową sprawą (i ustanowieniem nowego precedensu), strony postępowania prowadzą jednocześnie negocjacje pozasądowe o wysokości odszkodowania pod warunkiem wycofania sprawy.

Więc nie byłoby zaskoczeniem, gdyby pieniądze uzyskane z dotychczasowych pomp BSV w dużej mierze szły na pokrycie roszczeń Kleimanów celem wycofania sprawy z sądu.
Wilk syty (pewna wartość roszczeń pokryta i pewna), owca cała (najpoważniejsze oskarżenie pod adresem Wrighta ze strony najpoważniejszych oskarżycieli zostaje wycofane).

Kwota ta może oczywiście wynosić ostatecznie nie 5mld USD, ale np. 1mld USD, płatne ratalnie.

Technically it could be possible even for someone who is not a professional daily trader. Example:
1. Some time ago, you bought 10 BTC for $100 each. You had been HODLing it until 2017 peak (and sold for $16000/BTC) - when mass media was all about BTC
2. You waited carefully to the bottom, hearing about crypto nuclear winter - bought BTC when in December 2018 it was for $4000. If you invested all cash from 2017 sale of BTC, you would have had 40 BTC.
3. Next, you waited until that small hype of July 2019 and sold all 40 BTC for $12000 each. $480000 it is.
4. As in previous year, you waited until the December bottom took place, and bought at ~$7000/BTC. As a result you have in your wallet almost 70 BTC
5. If BTC will go back to $20000 levels this year as expected by many, the value of that wallet is going to be ~$1400000

Of course, if we deduct the income taxes (if applicable), the value of wallet at point no. 5 would be closer to $1M not 1,5M.

Just like we observed during the bank crisis in Greece and Cyprus - you will have imposed upon you a small daily withdrawal limit (like $50) for your account by the authorities.

Ba, coraz głośniej słychać opinie, że te pompy to nic innego niż przygotowanie do exit scamu. Gdzie drgawki pośmiertne mogą potrwać nawet rok lub dwa.

Out of these 10M, it is estimated that at least 4M are lost for good (especially old ones) - as owners lost passwords or old HDD with wallets got broken. Not to mention those belonging to Satoshi himself or some people who may be deceased/imprisoned.
Next, many BTCs are stored on hardware/cold wallets belonging to biggest exchanges (and because of low trading volume in general, these had not been moved). Next, we still have a group of people who do not make any BTC transactions because they consider it as a form of the pension scheme.

Nevertheless, there are not so many BTC wallets with a huge amount of BTC, enough to actually cause pump and dump.

In general, many people do not think in a perspective longer than 5 years. But luckily there are notable exemptions which think forward and therefore we already have some teams of developers trying to address this future threat.

Now just think about one thing - in the last couple of years in many countries, banks had been refusing to provide services to new customers/closing existing accounts of people and companies with some unpopular political views or who had been involved in the cryptocurrency environment.

Imagine that you could find yourself practically excluded from cashless society in such case, with almost no alternative available. Theoretically, you could switch fully to cryptocurrencies IF they are widely adopted and your employer could pay your salary in crypto. Otherwise, you would be forced to ask someone to allow you to use their bank account/card for daily use (if this would be legal of course - otherwise imagine that you may not be able to get a salary, pay for your bills etc).  

Because BSV can be pumped and gets free popularity in accordance with the rule - no matter what, people will talk about you.

Of course without privacy, just like with wire bank transfers. They would explain, that without this fighting against pump and dump (what is banned on stocks) is virtually impossible and that cryptocurrencies cannot be widely adopted thanks to their volatility caused by P&D.

And once it is done, we might even face a situation that trading cryptocurrencies above some threshold/trading volume (or trading specific cryptos) would require you to obtain a state-issued broker license. Only having such license uploaded to exchange in a form of KYC would unlock trading limits.

In some eurozone countries, they do not mint anymore 1 and 2 Eurocent coins (and in general all the payments in cash are rounded to .05 or .00 value). And the discussion is already taking place, as technically without cash (in the opinion of many people) money laundering would not be possible.
This, of course, would have potential big-brother style impact on people (imagine that bank could sell/forward some data of yours to authorities and other companies - so then if you eat fast-food frequently and buy it with your own card, your health insurance would be twice higher than now).

Anyway, spreading the scope of legislation related to cryptocurrencies leads to some sort of centralization gradually. Do not be surprised if in the next couple of years authorities would require the same type of identity verification for wallets as now for opening bank accounts.

Not to mention that manipulating national currencies (eg. by printing money) is often done by purpose, to make own companies with their products cheaper than of its foreign competition. This is how China for years had been working as a factory for the world.