I must say that I like this development but this can't be entirely still. It could be merely a twist by a few of them whether people complained or not. The flexibility of allowing their customer to pend their KYC completion by choice is still a very good one in my opinion, only that people are taking it too far against the casinos which are supposed not to be. If a casino is not advertising a no-KYC, I see no reason why we should not get prepared for its completion now or later, and when we did not do it for a long duration of time despite giving us such a huge grace and the casinos now ask for it, we should not take any offence whatsoever because it is the right thing they do whether it is for our high winning or withdrawal reasons.

For me, I do not see any difference in this latest development because I always go from the KYC casino and complete my KYC immediately even before depositing my money. Is that not better? You can see that for someone like me, the development is still the same, only that people are always carried away and want to just be dealing with companies without doing the needful. But what I would not like is for a casino to be asking for additional documents after successfully verifying all the needed KYC details and documents. That disgusts me if I must say.

And men cannot multitask? Well, you are not getting the point. Any establishment has its vision and goals and the labour (man or woman) and plans to actualise the two. Now, what you asked depends on the nature of the job, because there are some jobs that it is better fitting for women than men, and vice versa. According to the plans of the establishment, they may prefer either of the two genders for the same job that other establishments are indifferent about because, at times, it is beyond what we see or think, they might have their ulterior motives which could be best suited for women or men. And when the job is masculinist in nature, it would obviously be given to men in most cases, unless women believed to be fitting for it are discovered and assigned to it. The same goes for the opposite.

Above all, you will hardly see the job nature where men and women can't fit in, and you will see enough that both men and women are practically heading. That is in the natural sense, but in the peculiar/preferential sense, it depends on the preference of the establishment and not the fact you brought out that one is more tasking, no, men are even better in all ramifications than women, in my opinion, even though some women are worthy rival to men.  

As I said above, it depends on the nature of the job and my plans to achieve my goal of establishing it. If at all, I will not discriminate for any reason so long as the two genders are best fitting for the job. I will only do the interview and employ the most qualified hand. However, if there is a better need for a particular gender due to the nature of the job, obviously, I will go for either of the two for the best productivity.

They say information is power, and the more you know about the teams that want to play, the more you can do the arithmetic and use your instinct to know the right team to choose. Also, the fact that sports are being betted live as it is played makes them unique, and it's also the reason why its betting is more reasonable and can't be tricked against the bettor since it is being watched all over the world with the record even posted everywhere on the internet after the game. It's also very simple with minimal risk depending on the kind of options the bettor opted for. Once you know how to analyze and speculate well about it, the issue is half-solved, but we still need the proper management of our portfolio to make it better in case of unexpected loss. Most of the immediate and past histories are also important here and I love to conclude my betting before the match starts to avoid the mistake of being emotional.

Bro, as simple as your post is, you covered a lot with it and truly if traders can follow your advice, it will be well with them. However, permit me to break the main reasons why traders fail in trading into parts, which are;

1. The lack of knowledge or proper knowledge.
2. Poor/improper training on what the trader knows to achieve a trading system.
3. Lack of proper money and risk management.
4. Lack of coordination of what the trader knows and trains about to form a viable plan with them. And finally,
5. Poor trading psychology.

In my long years of trading experience and teaching/tutoring, I discovered that the main problems of traders dangle between 3, 4 & 5, especially the 5th one. If traders can take care of the three and are disciplined/determined towards them, I am certain that success is closer for such traders.

You have some good points and I agree with most of them, but it is not in all of them, especially in the aspect of the reason stated to back your points up with facts that you have solid backing for them. It's true that Bitcoin could be getting harder to predict, yet, it is predictable especially if you shun the side attractions, especially online and the tradition but focus on the technical analysis and current happenings that are verifiable and impactful. They can be very useful this time and will avoid issues for the investors. Our Charts Don't Lie unless we read them wrongly.

Like you, I do not expect much from this year's halving, but the reason you have is different from mine. Your reason regarding the little left to mine is not so genuine since it was also a little left to mine in the last cycle but see what Bitcoin did? I believe the having is beyond what Satoshi meant it for with the latest happenings, it is now a tradition where people bring in money to buy Bitcoin. Whether miners have mined up to 99.99%, that tradition will not die. That's how people think and behave, they see it beyond the mere economics of scarcity that Satoshi planned for it.

Regardless, my fear now is that Bitcoin has done what it has never done before in the past cycles with the way it performed recently. I doubt if a lot would change this time.

Point of correction, no liquidity is reduced in Bitcoin due to halving, but the amount remaining to be mined will automatically be halved, and so the block reward. It is purported to distort the economics surrounding Bitcoin in terms of the demand and supply of the coin and cause it to be more valuable. Is this working, Yes, we can see what has happened in the past halving but we should not think it will continue automatically. This calls for caution this time.

Also with my studies of the past halving, the major bullish movements never happened immediately, we should expect the same now. Also, with the manner in which Bitcoin had moved past its former ATH already, a lot of interested buyers have committed their money to the coin already, which might slow progress down after halving this time since not so much money might be immediately available for it after it halved this time. If you agree with me, the situation we see in Bitcoin now is not the ones we saw in the past cycles. So we should expect a twist this time as well. For this, I am not expecting much after Bitcoin halving in 2024, and the $190,000 you called is too high judging by the reality of the present.

I think the word Conscience is misused in this context. What is directly involved in investment decision-making and to be blamed or appraised in any decision are your mind and instinct. They are actually the judge here. How to use them now depends on the knowledge and experience you have about the thing to decide upon and your affinity to gamble or take risks.

If at all you lose, what is the conscience issue about that? You can blame yourself entirely for that and regret it for long but still not feel remorse, not to mention your conscience prickling you. Unless you invested the money meant for a better purpose, stole someone's money, or lied to someone to collect the invested money you lost etc, that's the only time the conscience can be prickling you. But if this is your money or the money someone gifted you without having another purpose for it, why the conscience remark?

Also, I like you to know that in trading and investment, we are taking risks always, and the more you take the risk, the more likely it will become profitable to you if you are good at what you do. Investment is not a child's play and if anyone cannot handle it, it is better to steer clear of it, as it's never by force.

Nonetheless, what you expressed in full is basically emotional, and we should handle it with a strong mind and psychology.

Technology has its good and bad sides, but in all, the good side outweighs the bad side. Again, when it is well managed and used for the right purposes, it is even better as it will save costs, increase productivity and efficiency and also enhance security. However, the issue you just brought is not as you believed it, the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) is not necessarily a means to monitor the employee but to record all the activities going on in the places covered by it.

This is why its primary purposes are for Security and Surveillance. You will need to do the surveillance for security's sake, which is why I believe the CCTV seems to be monitoring the employees, which is of course true, but not the main purpose.

There are no standard establishments where you will not see the CCTV, even in the supermarkets, all these can't primarily mean they are infringing on their employees or people's privacies but to be accountable for whatever happened in that vicinity. This is especially true when there is an incident. The first thing the police would ask is the CCTV.

If it were to be the monitoring of the employee, a senior staff without any additional payment would be able to do that just fine.

The scam is a very good reason why one might want to stay away from new crypto projects, and of course, many have been scammed due to this in the past. Also, the belief matters so much even as I love to respect the beliefs of others. If your belief is not in line with any project, you may honour it, but do not be pained if you later see the project moves x100, after all, without risks, there can't be gains and it is the risk for those who are now millionaire of cryptocurrency took for them to get to that level.

This is why at times, we look beyond our belief and the fear of being scammed to take the risk, and if it works well for us, we will eventually smile. However, I do not think that any cryptocurrency that has been listed by exchanges like Binance can still be a scam. This is why I wait till they are listed in such an exchange. If the project is good and promising, I buy it. After all, it's all about risk.

But for the cost, that can't be a good reason at all, as new projects are often very cheap to own.

He doesn't have to be God to speculate but the only issue I see here is that the guy is too lousy about it. He was just preaching buying and buying but didn't weigh the risk of buying. About the speculation of a thing, you will have to say something regarding your view and analysis of the market, and there are also speculators with about 95% accuracy. Yes, you read it rightly. They do not have to be God to get to that level but to continue training until they are very good at it. Such traders are few but they exist, and of course, a human being like you.

Now, what I fault about the guy is that he is not considering the high price of Bitcoin and the potential retracement/correction, and the extent to which the market could fake investors at this high level. This could also cause uninformed investors to lose because I have seen some of them buying at high levels and saying their investment lost more than 10% pretty fast which scared them to close it quickly to avoid losing more. Needless to say, Bitcoin will not earn so much for investors anymore in this season but for futures traders, so the hyping of it by him as though one can still make a life fortune from it is uncalled for.

I've never been a fan of the comparison of Bitcoin with Gold, it's never worth it as I earn my decent money from the two. Nevertheless, thank you for admitting that you are biased towards Bitcoin in your write-up which also shows that you are not a good investor but an opportunist for what Bitcoin has to offer and for what the Bitcointalk members like to read. Good investors do not have any emotion leaning on any asset against another, that's just against the rule. As it is, I will not be able to reply to all your irregular points, but I will do my best to answer a few important ones that caught my attention.

Bitcoin is never a substitute for Gold, the two are just different assets with different sources, models, structures and operations. Also, it is good to know that Gold is a compressed asset, which will never make it behave like Bitcoin which is not a compressed asset. This is why you see Gold adding trillions of dollars and may not move more than $300. This is what it has to pay for being a centralised physical asset, and such was done to avoid inflation of the precious metal. The track record of Gold is enormous, is it the age, its use as the world reserve and many more? It has survived the test of time but Bitcoin is still very young and time will tell more about the two. For your information, your Gold can be bought and stored online as well, it is not necessary for you to buy and own only physical gold before you own and benefit from it.

The DCA approach did not also start from Bitcoin, it started many centuries before Bitcoin and enough people had used it in Gold and other assets and kept their assets just fine.

Wait a minute, where do you DCA your Gold if not online for safekeeping? Do you even know what you are saying?

My attention was brought to this thread today and I must say that the first time I viewed it, it wasn't what I took seriously despite looking for the Binary option platform that would be trustworthy just like the OP. I even created a thread about this more than a year ago with no satisfactory answer from anyone then. I bet this Rollbit binary option is new if at all is like the traditional way of paying it. I guess I will try it starting next week. But the way I saw the platform, it might still not be what I want. I guess I will know upon registration.

And @alani123, were you able to achieve your Binary option desire with Rollbit?

About a year is long enough for many things to have changed, and for them to stick with BTC/USDT and ETH/USDT is even better for their customers because the customers will be more focused on limited assets than too many of them. This affects traders' psychology, and since it's betting in relation to the market, gamblers should imbibe it as well. But really, I don't also know why trusted companies are avoiding the binary option, I have seen enough of them stopping the offering. It might be that players earn more than them which is not good for their business. Enough traditional brokers offering it later stopped years back, and even betting sites in my country too.

As for your question, the Binary option is a betting arrangement that makes you bet in the right direction at the right duration. For this, you can mainly use the technical analysis for it to be better accurate. You may also use news calendar trading if you are a seasoned trader, and of course, your right analysis and instinct should tell you the right duration to choose. Just don't guess it like many do.

https://punchng.com/fg-files-tax-evasion-charges-against-binance

Pardon me for saying I've known the Nigerian government to be clueless and forceful, but with no good results to back it up. They rather act before thinking, perhaps their brains are under their feet. Because their policies and resolves in situations are likened to using the medicine for headaches to cure stomach aches. I just don't know how we got here.

It's no news that the Nigerian government has been trying to punish Binance for their own ignorance. I am not a Binance fan due to their many ignoble acts, yet the Nigerian government should have applied wisdom to the whole situation. From the beginning even before we got here, I've always held the stance that the Nigerian government should make Binance and the likes accountable by forcing them to be duly registered and regulated. By that, the government can gain more oversight (security and accountability) and also get the taxes due for the country. This would have been a win-win for the government, but they are just blind, thinking banning cryptocurrency dealing with banks was the solution.

Now that their eyes have opened a little, they still continue to handle the situation with idiocy, in my opinion. First, Binance is not registered in the country as proven in the link below:

https://nairametrics.com/2023/06/18/binance-ceo-declares-binance-nigeria-limited-a-scam-entity/?amp=1

How can a company that is not registered in your country pay tax to you? I just don't understand. It is the government that should have forced Binance to do that. But that is if they have the valid means to do that, just like the US did. As I write, many companies are dealing with Nigerians and a huge amount of money is flowing to them. But because they never registered with Nigeria, the government can't even dare to make them accountable. Why is Binance's case different even when they are not answerable to you? If at all they would start paying, the tax payment may only start immediately after they cooperate with the country and get registered, and not for years of no registration/cooperation. Those times can only be termed a free gift to Binance due to the ignorance of the Nigerian government. Not to mention this time the exchange has totally stopped the NGN dealings.

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/business/674540-binance-discontinues-naira-services.html

For their information, Binance is an exchange, just like a broker, and to date, I am dealing with many brokers that have no presence in Nigeria just like many other Nigerians. Has the Nigerian government asked any of them for tax, do they even have the right when they do not register in the country? The worst is to ban your citizens from dealing with them, and I wonder how many opportunities you would give the citizens by doing that to many companies in the world.

Some may say that Binance transacted with NGN, fine, that's true, but in my understanding, the service was never directly, but through a third party. If at all anyone would pay the taxes for those transactions, it would be the third party company which I believe is registered with the country for it to deliver such a service that passes through Nigerian banks. As for the P2P service, we all know that it is platform-based and a service that has to do with person-to-person as though we do normal transactions in the country, so it doesn't count here.

For these, I believe the Nigerian government through FIRS can never win Binance in this case in a fair court. I don't know how they would serve Binance because I have not seen the notice of service and I wonder where they will serve the company that is not registered in the country, and with no headquarters.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/binance-worlds-top-crypto-exchange-center-us-investigations-2023-03-27/

Does Nigeria even have the legal jurisdiction's right to serve Binance that is not registered with the country simply because the citizens patronise it?

Well, this is my view, I would love to hear from you guys.

For me, what cryptocurrency brought was Decentralisation and Privacy depending on the coin you are using, but never Anonymity as many wrongly widely believe(d). Nothing is anonymous in crypto transactions, it might only take time and a huge puzzle to solve, notwithstanding, that the transactions can still be linked/located.

With crypto casinos, it got worse with the involvement of third-party transactions as people were sending and receiving cryptos to and from the casinos respectively. Are casinos not another party serving the public, and not private? That makes it no privacy anymore in my opinion inasmuch as it is not only you and your crypto again but as involved a third party (casino). But people do not often think it to that extent. And with the pressure of regulation and knowing more about your customer (KYC), it gets worse even as people trust and prefer the licenced and regulated crypto casinos to the opposite due to the safety of their money. This is however the way it should be since too much privacy/anonymity is dangerous to the world.

Simply put, we are heading to more regulation, indirect de-decentralization of crypto transactions and more accountability. Isn't that cool?

And of course, fiat is not crypto and crypto is not fiat, and never would they be, so they will always be different since their structure and mechanism of operation are different. This is even as you can own and seize your crypto in a wallet where nobody (not even the government) can touch it since you own the private key. Can you do the same with fiat? They are not just the same.

The "must" you used is what actually attracted me in your sentence and I strongly disagree with it as used. Three factors are important here which are 1). The nature of the job and 2). The time of gambling, and 3). The nature of the gambler.

Depending on the job, many workers have enough time to do whatever they want to do whether the thing is useful or not, and if they do not gamble at that time, they might even possibly be idle for hours doing nothing. Gambling that time and with that nature of work will never make you lose focus. Of course, unless you are an addict who gambles anyhow which is a different context entirely.

But so long as the gambler is wise and responsible himself, this is not an issue as he would know the right time to gamble and when not to. However, if you are such that gambling is affecting your focus at work, then quit it, but should not be treated as a basis for everyone, especially those who know how to handle themselves well.

Hahaha...This point is very right, and if you are such that can't handle yourself you should quit it at that time, it is never by force. But mind you, if a person is passing aggression just because of losses in gambling, how are you sure that the same person will not pass the same aggression when he gambles during off-work hours?

For clarity, what if the person has just lost a huge amount of money a few hours prior to resuming work on that day or next, will such be happy as if nothing has happened? Certainly No. This is why I still see this as individual behaviours which gamblers must strive to avoid. It is never peculiar to gambling at work at all, it is part of the irresponsible behaviour in gambling that we generally preach against.

You can't just stop getting me laughing here. What you are trying to buttress still lies within the same point you've been trying to establish. What you just explained is the irresponsible character of a gambler and not a matter of gambling at work or not. If a gambler gambles at work and can't fund his transport home and also back to work the next day, is that not foolishness/addiction? What if the same gambler did not gamble at work but gambled senselessly after work with all his money including the one that would take him home and back to the workplace the next day? Will he not suffer the same fate? Think about it, it is still the same thing and is not peculiar to gambling at work as it can happen to gamblers at any time. It generally an irresponsible act by a gambler which is due to the lack of self-control and management of scarce resources.

You should have called your ideal price where a retracement can hit to encourage you to buy the coin. In the absence of that, the $50,000 psychological level you randomly called is no longer realistic in my opinion, Bitcoin may fall but may not get to that extent anymore until the next bearish season. Also, I would like you to know that my reference point for the coin is the MagicTrend level of $67,629. I Sell below the level if the daily price action is negative and I Buy above the level if the daily price action is positive. This has helped me in recent days trading as you can see with the behaviour of the coin around the level.

If you you look at the daily chart of Bitcoin, you can see that the said level has been so important as it is the level that has been stopping the rebound of the market price ever since it successfully breached it lower about a week ago. The level was even hit today amidst positive price action but there has not been a sustainable break above it to warrant the call for a successful bullish trend. I am waiting for a daily close above the level before taking the bullish trend seriously again.

I must say that I like the way you balance things here as you speak for the possible cons and pros in your opinion and still arrive at your conclusion which also agrees with mine. You see, these days, a lot of people are just coming up with their ideas and are labelling them what they like. But one thing that is sure is that it is better we keep it simple and not complicate things for ourselves even as the term Smart DCA is confusing due to different meanings of people to it. The subject of smart DCA is still new and it is mainly about how we divest and not invest by some people where they divest some parts on market depreciation to purchase it back. A way we reduce our risk in the bearish mode, which is not a traditional way of investment through the DCA approach. This is also different with some people as they believe it is a simple way to invest only in a smart way.

You know what? To avoid issues, I stick with my standard DCA approach. The main reason why I like the DCA approach is that you average your potential gains and risks, and as far as I am concerned, it is only greed that can make people do otherwise because they want more. It's greed in the sense that you want to outsmart the market more, but in the process, you can cheat yourself or even get confused. So, why not stick to the DCA way that has been tested for centuries to be working fine if used correctly? Many of the recent additions/modifications will only put more investors in trouble if care is not taken. The market is dynamic and tricky, so what you think works now may not work later. However, by using the DCA strictly, you have effectively averaged the risks and the potential benefits. Also, by shunning the greed and side attractions like the smart DCA makes you a focused and disciplined investor in my opinion.

Keep holding your Dogecoin, I am sure that you will gain your money back, it might only take some time. I only hope you did not buy it at the ATH level or the levels that are close to it. If you did, then it will take more time to reach it again as I even have a doubtful mind if it will reach that level again this time, or might just briefly hit it or closer levels before slipping back to its bearish trend when other coins and tokens are doing the same in the next bearish season of cryptocurrency as a whole.

Also, note that Dogecoin could be losing its relevance gradually which is evident from what we have seen in its performances over the a year. This is also applicable to SHIB, and you can see how they behaved compared to how the newer meme coins like PEPE and FLOKI behaved in recent weeks. Since they are meme coins, I believe that the new ones could be the main resort of investors even as they want to catch them at lower prices and with a lower market capitalization. The market cap of Dogecoin will be its discouragement over time when there are still lower meme coins with better projects as rivals.

I pray we are not a victim of data leak violence, the data leak is bad and it could lead to anything. Nevertheless, completing our KYC is not an automatic way to leak our data, which was my main point in that post. Fine, data can be leaked through the self-serving activities of some unscrupulous employees, regardless, it is not always rampant and the direct threat to the victim of the data leak is not always huge if the person is wise enough not to disclose his further information upon contacting him on the telephone or online, and by not clicking unsolicited emails and links and sharing of codes. I have never heard that a data leak through the KYC of a reputable company has caused physical contact and an attack on the person, and even if it is happening, the case is so little to the point it is not always known.

This is the same as having a bank account, we have a lot of people's details with banks and many of these people are high-net-worth individuals and big companies owners. Most of these guys are regular guys we see daily, but still, they are not always being attacked or harassed because they do KYC with their bank and also for the fact that they live an expensive life. This is even as bank employees could also compromise but yet, they are not being harassed due to such.

What you explained is the case of a lousy person attracting everyone to himself on social media, including criminals. This has nothing to do with any company or the KYC completion, so what do you expect? Anything can happen to such a person, even the most worthless criminals may do the operation of locating him or his house and perpetrate the evil easily. What am I trying to establish? The data leaks are minimal and so are their threats compared to how some people take it, and data could be leaked even with the government-secured facilities. Even without KYC, one can be a victim of an organised crime, we should only pray we are not the victim of such a calculated crime.

I voted for Yes because all the figures on the wall show the same. Campaign managers may care less about the altercation between members of the forum and since it is a valid post, such would be scored OK just like others.

This is evident in the fact that they do not call anyone to order about this which is one of the reasons those wearing campaign signatures are emboldened to continue with their vulgar words unrestrained. Again, the forum does not spell a strict rule about this, I do not think that it is a headache for campaign managers to do that.

Needless to say, some of the abusive words are constructed with some sensible facts in most cases but just in an annoying manner. So this may make the campaign manager overlook the abusive words and go ahead to accept the post if the requirement of the campaign is met by it, which is the main goal here.