Well a lot of investment shows need to fill space, and it drives engagement to have someone as polarizing as Schiff on TV making brash predictions.  Hell, Jim Cramer built an entire career out of yelling aggressively.  Peter Schiff makes the same reckless predictions, albeit in a calm fashion.  They're essentially the same untrustworthy personalities peddling pseudo-nonsense, but for some reason have devoted followings, most likely by virtue of simply appearing on mass media, which implicitly gives them credibility.

It's hilarious to see all these bitcoin fanatics hyping bitcoin as the antithesis of centralized payment processors, and the PayPal killer, and then subsequently cheering PayPal's adoption of crypto because it pushes the price higher.  At the end of the day, relatively few people care about the tech.  They just care about the gains, and they don't really care why it happens, as demonstrated perfectly here.

I actually wouldn't expect it to have any impact on the price.  Binance could entirely disappear and there are more than enough exchange points people could go to in order to transact between bitcoin and fiat, so there would maybe be an initial (but extremely short-lived) disruption in demand.

This is hype run absolutely amok.  I'll take the over on crypto replacing the USD within the next 5 years.  Where can I place this bet?  I'll take the over on the next 10 years too.  If you want to know how out of touch the respondents are, consider that those thinking crypto could replace the USD "in the next 5 to 10 years" also said that it has "already achieved mainstream adoption."  Apparently they have set the bar for "mainstream adoption" so comically low as to involve not being able to conduct 99% of your everyday commerce transactions.  

Where I will agree that it has reach "mainstream" adoption is as an investment class, but this is worlds apart from CURRENCY use.  Nobody uses it as a currency.  I would wager not even the idiots in this article who said it's already reached mainstream adoption.

People know the government is corrupt, but having an ability to do anything about it is an entirely different matter.  Revolutions aren't easy because there's no centralization.  Once any momentum gets large enough to pose a threat to the government, they know about it and violently crack down.  

On another matter, your comment that people should be brutally murdered or assassinated as a means of controlling the government is just as disturbing as when a government employs those tactics to control a civilian population, and has no place in the modern world or a civilized society.

This raises the question why anyone would needlessly introduce middlemen to a transaction.  In this case, bitcoin is an unnecessary middleman.  If you're buying bitcoin to immediately spend it, why not just conduct the transaction in fiat?  There are very few situations where this makes sense, but a couple I can think of are cross border transactions or speed over electronic transfers, which are probably slower except in the case of wires.

I went through a spell where I was a Schiff follower, back before Bitcoin was ever a thing, but I came to the conclusion that he generally doesn't know what he's talking about when prediction after prediction about how doomed the dollar was failed to materialize for years.  Now I look back and realize he's just preaching his doom and gloom gospel to the very niche market of rich idiots who buy into the whole USD is going to zero fiction so he can sell them asset management services based on buying gold.

People who say bitcoin isn't an asset are factually wrong. An asset is literally anything that has value, and there are plenty of non-physical things that have value and are therefore assets.  Intellectual property is a classic example, including patents.  Also, 5G spectrum has no tangible existence and yet the major telecoms are buying swaths of it for billions of dollars, which they then own to build their 5G networks on.  This is another obvious example of a non-tangible asset.  And of course, any crypto- not tangible, has value = is an asset, according to the literal definition of the word.

In regards to number 2, there's no real reason to expect them to set up a KYC framework unless they can profit off of it somehow, and I just don't see a profit model there.  Lacking an economic interest in building their own KYC framework, they will either rely on a third party to handle this through an established exchange or not pursue their own token at all.  

In regards to number 1, what regulatory framework do they really need?  There's nothing stopping them currently from accepting bitcoin as a currency, the same as some other businesses currently do.  If they didn't want to deal in crypto themselves but still wanted to allow for crypto buyers to exchange with them, they could just use a third party to handle transactions and immediately convert crypto to fiat.  There is no regulatory framework required for either of these options, but it simplifies things considerably to use this last option from a bookkeeping and accounting perspective.

Venezuela is definitely a socialist country.  It is run by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, governs the economy with socialist objectives, and has nationalized private businesses in the name of socialism (and then proceeded to run those industries into the ground through cronyism and general incompetence, particularly the oil industry).  Prices are set by the government in Venezuela, another classic hallmark of socialism.  There is no way you can look at the government and conclude it's not socialist. 

And yet the fiat system has ushered in unparalleled economic prosperity despite the inflation "problem."  There are many reasons that deflationary currencies were abandoned, but the main one is that they discourage economic activity and slow down economic growth.  If the choice is having a smaller economy anchored by a deflationary currency, or the current monetary-economic model that maximizes economic growth at the cost of minor inflation, I pick the latter every time.  It is only under the latter that we have achieved the level of economic prosperity we have today.  Yes, over decades holding cash is a dumb idea under this model; so don't do it.  It's far dumber to pine for an inferior economic model just because it solves a relatively minor issue that can be easily avoided.  That's insanity.

This is interesting especially since Pfizer just got full FDA approval in the United States, which means that it is likely to increase market share as Moderna has not been fully approved and continues just to be approved on an emergency basis.  If there really is such a large disparity it outcomes over time, hopefully Moderna will be approved and gain marketshare.

There's definitely low hanging fruit here bitcoin can address. Faster blocks and bigger blocks would easily scale the network and allow it to be used for commerce more easily, and would also solve the cost efficiency problem.  For all the promise of lightning network, the implementation hasn't solved any actual issues on a practical level.  Its use-case in practice is a very small minority of transactions, so the bulk of transactions in bitcoin remain neither fast nor cheap.  On top of that, I'm just not convinced the trade off between decentralization and speed has proven either necessary or worth it.  There's not a problem with traditional centralized payment processors to the point where the world needs a decentralized immutable option.  To the extent the world wants one, there are currently better options than bitcoin due to bitcoin's consensus-based refusal to adapt.  In some respects, the consensus system offers benefits, but generally more in what I would call a hypothetical sense as the practical drawbacks at this point continue to heavily outweigh the potential benefits.  (Of course, in my extreme minority opinion.)

The same way the government regulates everything- you write a law and penalize people who don't comply with it.  If we've seen one thing with crypto regulations it's that nobody has proven effective at avoiding regulation.  In the case of bitcoin, you regulate the fiat exchange points (which are already regulated).  You pass a law, not too many people are going to risk noncompliance, especially when the consequence is prison.

Yes, the US is an example of a mixed economy.  Some examples of how the government impacts the economy include laws and licensing requirements that control the ability to buy or sell certain goods/services (liquor laws, gambling laws, excise taxes, licensing for certain professions, etc.), and the government's involvement in building infrastructure such as educational institutions, roads, hospitals, etc.  I don't know of any economy that is truly a free market economy.

I don't know if you mean to dispute my point or not, but your post supports the same premise.  Why things are difficult to change isn't as important as the fact that it's difficult to change.  Regardless of why, the inflexibility of bitcoin is why it's still a slow and clunky crypto and why it hasn't been able to incorporate improvements that other crypto's have introduced.

The FCA said it sent two requests for information about Binance's wider global business model and its stock tokens.  The information Binance sent back (when they even answered the requests) were viewed as, according to the FCA, "a refusal to supply information."  This is a huge red flag to regulators and should be to consumers as well.  If Binance does want to IPO, they better get on board with the regulatory regimes, because disclosures the disclosure requirements during the IPO process will be much more rigorous.

Not really sure your wealth is "secured" by an asset that has such extreme volatility.  In reality, almost nobody moves a significant portion of their wealth into crypto.  Almost every significant stake holder either has a small minority in crypto, or came into crypto holdings through minimal external investment and just lucked into the huge price swing.

2008 was an anomaly.  In just about every other case, people who took a 30 year mortgage were better off in the long term for having done so and building equity in the property over time.  Real estate has been a central force in creating the American middle class over time.

Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated. You have one anecdotal story about a complication, that you don't even know is linked to the vaccine, and that's your reason for not getting vaccinated? It sounds like panic if you're ignoring hundreds of millions of instances of nothing going wrong to focus on the very few instances of someone reporting a complication.  Statistically, that's not a reasonable conclusion, so the irrationality of it would be better described as "panic."