|
Stablecoins are a part of the question of what kinds of money exist, so I do agree that they should be mentioned in school programs. However, they don't deserve more attention than, for example, decentralized cryptocurrencies, which present a truly innovative way of issuing and exchanging money. I also think it's important to give attention to fiat, considering that it's the most commonly used kind of money. All should be taught in balance, with looking at potential risks, positive and negative sides of things. Focusing just on stablecoins doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Monopoly is a fun game and a nice way to teach basic financial management in a very interactive way to children. But life is not quite like Monopoly, starting from a simple fact that we don't all start with the same initial funds in reality, and we don't all start at square 1. Depending on age, they might be too young to get it, but at some point, it'll be a good thing to mention as well.
Another thing is that it's important to also teach that not everything in life is about money, that money is merely meant to be a means to getting something that actually makes a person happy. So finding what makes you happy and how you can help others to become happier is no less important than financial management. In that regard, I suggest you to look into the history of Monopoly.
|
|
|
|
|
11. Valentina Shevchenko
10. Jack Della Maddalena
9. Raul Rosas Jr
8. Daniel Zellhuber
7. Fernando Padilla
6. Lupita Godinez
5. Josh Fremd
4. Edgar Chairez
3. Jasmine Jasudavicius
2. Josefine Lindgren Knutsson
1. Charlie Campbell
NOT go the Full Distance 4
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I have a question here.
In the past, let's say even a couple of centuries ago, humanity was still battling natural forces, unable to produce enough for everyone. If there was a drought, a flood, or something else, it was a catastrophe because the already limited resources got even more scarce, resulting in even more people dying. But starting from the industrial revolution, we did a major breakthrough which allowed to finally overcome the issue of not producing enough. Growth was very important to finally reach a point of abundance.
Now, the thing is, we've reached that point. Globally, we produce enough food to feed everyone, enough clothes, enough medicine. Perhaps not enough housing, but also a lot of vacant housing and all the resources needed to build more. But we're still stuck in thinking that slower growth is a bad thing, and no growth is terrible.
Isn't the issue no longer about how much we produce, but how we use and distribute what we produce? So doesn't it mean that we could, hypothetically, significantly improve the lives of people without any economic growth necessary? So couldn't at least some issues be resolved by focusing on redistribution and rethinking priorities?
|
|
|
|
|
Game 1: 29, 19'
Game 2: 29, 23'
Game 3: 29, 34'
|
|
|
|
|
With Bitcoin, it's not an "either-or" situation of bullish vs bearish trends in the future. Looking at the price movement this year, it seems to me that Bitocoin is climbing up, but with big setbacks along the way. For example, the price was generally around $22k from mid-January till mid-March, around $27k till June, then over $29k since the end of June and till the middle of August, but now it's been around $26k for a few weeks. I hope it's a minor setback that won't spoil the general trend. And in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter if it goes up or down in the near future, as Bitcoin's life is likely to be full of bullish and bearing markets in the future with, hopefully, a continuation of the overall long-term upward trend.
|
|
|
|
|
Is losing a lot of money sad? Yes, of course it is. But it's not like he lost his life savings or money he crucially needed to save a loved one or whatever. The sooner a person lets go in a situation like this, the better. But the article says it's been a decade since the loss, so he's been poisoning his life and the lives of people around him for 10 years, while that time could have been spent on doing something productive, figuring out who you want to be in life etc. By continuing the attempts to get a permission to big through the landfill despite a clear and reasonable position of the local council, he's letting this thing continue to destroy his life.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm happy that a fairly small and fairly poor country managed to withstand international pressure and follow through with Bitcoin adoption. 2 years isn't a lot of time, especially considering the bear market, so perhaps we'll see long-term effects of this adoption later, but is there any good review of how it's going so far? It seems their GDP growth has been very slow lately, and I couldn't find much information on whether Bitcoin adoption affected their economy. There's no negative effect, so that's good, but it seems there's no pronounced positive effect countrywide either.
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't understand why the op couldn't just fact-check the stuff before posting. So many mistakes there about the first things... It almost looks like something AI would hallucinate due to a lack of knowledge. The first 4 points were corrected by tbct_mt2, and I want to add a point about ICOs. First of all, all previous points mention the first something, but not this one. Secondly, ICOs are counterposed by the op to Bitcoin and Ethereum, but Ethereum was launched through an ICO! As for the first ICO, Wikipedia says it was Mastercoin. |
|
|
|
|
If we consider loans an essential function of banks, then yes, cryptos are different. I've personally never use bank loans, so to me, it's not essential. As for savings and money transfers the op mentions, they can be totally done without banks, namely with Bitcoin.
Now, banks being worried about cryptos being used for illegal activities - well, it's not their place to be worried about that. They aren't the law enforcement or policymakers, and there've been huge scandals of very big-scale money laundering and other illicit activities done not just by people who are customers of banks, but by banks themselves, and major ones at that. So they should focus their worries on that.
|
|
|
|
|
The op's link gives error 404, but I've found a link to a different media in the thread. Let's not forget that it's not a random neutral country, it's Russia we're talking about. Russia's banking system suffered a lot from international sanctions, and let's add to that that ruble has been gradually spiralling down lately. So, of course, there's a serious motivation here to undermine the banking system, to look for new ways to avoid sanctions like the SWIFT ban, and to work on strengthening local currency.
That shouldn't count as any sort of professional opinion because Russia's a very special case. I don't think it'll help them fight unemployment or effectively avoid sanctions, but it might give a bad reputation by association to CBDC, which to true crypto supporters can turn out to be a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
He was found guilty, there are more than 2 thousand victims, and he seems to think he's very smart and capable (so, no remorse, I guess), but I still don't get the sentence length. I mean, if it's a sentence for the rest of his life, he can be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Or to two life sentences. But thousands of years... I see that it's apparently common in Turkey, but still.
Also, while fraud is a crime, I'm not sure if I believe that it's such a huge crime, if it wasn't violent (and I assume it wasn't in this case because it's online). Does a person even deserve life imprisonment for that? Wouldn't it be better to force him to repay all the debt to the victims and serve a reasonable prison sentence?
As for identifying and overcoming such fraudsters in the future, it seems that the law enforcement is doing alright in that regard, and what people should do is avoid losing money on exchanges by simply never keeping a big amount on any exchanges, no matter how reputable they seem.
|
|
|
|
|
I can see that the majority here support the DCA as a good investment strategy. Of course, there are some risks, as DCA doesn't guarantee a positive outcome and can lead to buying at an unfavourable price. Some say it's a strategy for beginners, but honestly, i think it's just good for anyone who doesn't want to drown in researching the market and emotional rollercoasters of making right or wrong decisions. It's also safer because if a person buys a lot at an unfortunate time, it's worse than buying a part at a good time and a part at a bad time.
|
|
|
|
As you know bitcoin halving is a few months away (first quarter 2024) and then we may have bull season in 2024/2025. We are all excited about the bull season but no one prepares for it. People start buying Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies when the bull market is in progress and the prices are already high. Some even have the fear of missing out and buy at the top of the bull market. The result is that most people lose money in bull season too.
So in order to have maximum benefits in the bull market, you should have a plan and start executing it unless it is too late.
I have already accumulated bitcoin in my portfolio (70% of my portfolio is in bitcoin) which i will not sell until we are above the all time high again. Similarly, i have bought some major cap coins and a few others low cap too which i think will perform well in the bull season. I have been doing this for the last 3 to 4 months, buying some at every dump.
If the market dumps further, I will not panic and if I have more spare money, I may accumulate more bitcoin. I am confident that this bull season will be the best so far as it will be initiated by institutional investors.
Also, to keep my bitcoin secure and to remain calm in times of dump, I have moved my bitcoins in cold storage so I never get tempted to sell on small profits like i won't be selling on 2x profit if bitcoin reaches 50,000$. My targets are clear and will sell in parts after bitcoin reaches new highs.
People do often buy when the price is suddenly getting higher, and then don't have the patience to wait for several more years for their mistake to become something more positive. So your plan, op, is very responsible. I don't believe that halving is responsible for the bull market, but I do believe we're likely to see the bull market around Q4 2024, so prepping ahead makes sense to me. I wonder what you mean by it becoming the best bull season, though. Is it by market cap that Bitcoin gains, or is it by the multiplier of the price? Because if it's the latter, I don't think we'll see anything beyond 2-3x rise above the previous ATH this time, with or without institutional investors. As the market capitalization is getting bigger, Bitcoin is clearly growing slower in price. |
|
|
|
|
I think DCA is just a good strategy because it's very simple, calm, and realistic. A person chooses a fixed amount that one can afford to invest per month, and just commits to doing it, no matter how the price is moving. And of course, it's more profitable to buy at a low price than if it rises, but with DCA you win some and lose some, without needing to stress over market analysis, finding the right time to buy or sell, etc. Occasionally buying when the price is on the rise isn't a problem, IMO. The only time when I'd say DCA can be unwise is a few months of a rapid bull market that happen once every 2-3 years, but that's just generally not a great investing time.
|
|
|
|
|
2008 was the year when the global financial crisis really hit the world, although it started in 2007. Now, Bitcoin is speculated to have been created partially because of a desire to give people an alternative in a situation like that, when everything's failing. But there still hasn't been a major economic crisis to see how it performs under such harsh global economic conditions.
In any case, it doesn't look to me like 2024 will be the year of a big economic global crisis, so I don't think 2024 is 2008. Perhaps the op meant something else, but the post is vague, so I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
I might be wrong, but I think they won a lawsuit, which means that the judge agrees that the SEC failed to justify why Bitcoin futures are okay, but ETF isn't. Winning the lawsuit doesn't grant a permission to launch an ETF without the SEC's approval, and I don't think a big company like that will risk it. They still need an approval, just like BlackRock, but the SEC is now in trouble and needs to either up its argumentation or start approving ETF applications. I don't know which option they'll choose, but until the first SEC approval is granted, I don't think there will be Bitcoin ETFs in the US or impact on Bitcoin's price. If the SEC finally budges, I think it's reasonable to assume that it might be enough to trigger a bull market, and a $100k price at the next bull market sounds very reasonable as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if it's technically possible, I don't think it'll ever be done because that's simply too much, the majority of those whose opinions count on this one will be certainly against it. I think the desire to alter the total supply also comes out of wrong intentions. Some people feel greedy and worried that they won't get enough BTC because it's just 21 million total. Some are genuinely concerned that 21 million isn't enough, but that, IMO, is an uninformed opinion because Bitcoin is greatly divisible into sats, so the total supply isn't actually small.
To sum up, I think it's practically impossible and completely unnecessary to try changing the supply.
|
|
|
|
|
As others pointed out, it's not like halving's a mystery, a secret that miners are unaware of. Yes, the reward is getting twice smaller, but that doesn't mean that miners will feel discouraged because miners are expected to be interested in a potential profit coming from the future increase of Bitcoin's price. FOMO is can also be triggered prior to halving, with people suddenly becoming more aware that 6.25 now is 3.125 in several months. I don't think that halving has a negative effect on Bitcoin market, miners' motivation, transaction fees or anything like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Air pollution is a big deal because it's not only uncomfortable but also harmful and even deadly to some people. Coal burning on power plants certainly seems among the main reasons, and that's something that Indonesia needs to reduce significantly. It's harmful to the environment, and it's having a direct negative impact on the well-being of citizens.
That being said, is crypto mining truly a big thing in Indonesia? I see others are also voicing their doubts about that.
In any case, the problem is with coal being the source of energy, not with crypto mining.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
