Bitcoin is too volatile to be seriously analysed like that. There's a pretty strong tendency for Bitcoin to recover from the bear markets and surpass the previous ATH point, but the ups and downs in between are unpredictable.
I personally don't think that this is it and Bitcoin won't go below $30k. But I also think that the 15% difference isn't that high, $30k is still a good price, as it's less than half of the previous ATH point.

It seems to me that the distribution of ATMs and the popularity of cash depend a lot on the kind of country we're dealing with. Some countries actively resist the trend of becoming cashless economies, and there are also rural vs urban differences (cash is often more prevalent in rural areas).
I like that the op's poll allows choosing multiple options. I chose the first one because I don't think cash will be replaced by Bitcoin (although I don't think it's a conspiracy either). I also chose #3 because I've seen examples of strong cashless economies where you sometimes can't even pay in cash (or pay more in cash than by card). That being said, it doesn't mean that Bitcoin is actively adopted there, as cash is often simply replaced by cards.

Nobody knows for sure how much BTC was lost. Some were 'burned', yes, and maybe some were accidentally sent to wrong addresses. But many coins which are presumed lost actually just haven't been moved for some time (5+ years), but it's possible that the owners still have access to them.
The 100-year-plan doesn't really matter to any of us because we won't live long enough to see it. At the same time, the amount of BTC is capped at 21 million, and changing that would require significant changes in the code, I think, which will probably be met with resistance.
There's really no need for that anyway, considering that there's a satoshi denomination that can be used in case BTC gets so widely adopted that people would only normally own small fractions of it.

While halving does seem to get a lot of attention each time, I think the attention is usually positive. Namely, a lot of people believe that halving is correlates strongly with the bull market. The reasoning here is that mining becomes more difficult, so fewer new bitcoins are mined, and so scarcity of Bitcoin becomes prominent, leading to the increase of price. Alternatively, there's reasoning that mining must stay profitable, and as fewer coins are being mined, the price is bound to go up. Both are faulty, of course, but it doesn't mean they aren't influential.

I don't know if you know this, but the president usually has very limited power, unless it's some sort of authoritarian regime and a person is just called 'president' but is much more than that. In many countries, the position of the president holds no official power, merely serving as a representative function for international relations and unity within the country. In my country, the president has some oversight over other branches of power, but the economy is the prerogative of the Prime minister and the government (the Cabinet of Ministers). So if I were the president, there wouldn't be much I could do about our economy, apart from being publicly against corruption, perhaps negotiating deals for foreign aid and suggesting ideas which would need to be developed in the Parliament.
Considering that my country is in an active state of war against another country, and it's not the kind of war we can just stop, all the state budget goes for military purposes. I think the economy is bound to suffer under such conditions, and the goal is to merely keep it afloat. After the war's over, I think focusing on what needs to be done (and lots of things will need to be done, like repairing tons of infrastructure, working in important political issues) will stimulate the economy. If there's something that needs to be fixed, people are needed. People get employed, and receive money for their work. Then this money enters the flow, and that stimulates the economy even more.

I think fiat isn't meant to be stored, it's meant to be spent. That's why some inflation is considered a good thing: the idea is that people understand that their money will be able to get them less goods in the future than now, so they're motivated to spend. But as for the cash issue the op described, I think it's harder to keep track and control spending with a bank account (unless you designate a savings card or something), whereas with cash you can just commit to taking a certain amount with you, and then you literally can't spend more. I think you just need to train yourself to be strong-willed, and set realistic goals. Then it won't be hard to manage funds.

If the initiative comes from private businesses rather than state-owned companies or institutes, I don't see how it's a sign of the government's malicious intents. There are asset managing companies, and they are seeking institutional approval. On its own, it's a totally normal, natural thing. They might get their approvals or get rejected, but the government isn't taking over anything if the companies themselves apply to be regulated. Also, asset management companies being regulated doesn't give any control over Bitcoin as a decentralized cryptocurrency to the authorities, I think.
This idea only works if one believes, and I think the op is stating, that big corporations are actually controlled by the government, but I don't believe in that.

If such a thing actually happens, it's clear that gold would quickly lose the vast majority of its value, and it would no longer be considered a standard, something financially reliable. But how likely is such an event? And wouldn't a bigger issue of a huge asteroid be a deadly explosion?
That being said, what's more realistic is that there's already a lot of gold on Earth, much more than anticipated. And over the years, there've been some news indicating that (Charles-Tim linked some).
Bitcoin is scarce, there's no way around it. However, it's also very volatile in value, and I think people still appreciate gold more largely because it's more stable in price in practice, even if in theory it might suddenly change at some point.

I don't think it has anything to do with China, although Hong Kong encouraging banks to accept crypto clients is pretty recent news. From what I see, it seems that the ETF applications are more likely to be the reason behind the recent rise. Unfortunately, though, it might also mean that the increase is very temporary because it's a short event, unlike adoption of Bitcoin by some country or in some region.
But also, it's not such a huge increase that would require an obvious trigger. It can simply be a natural leap forward after some time of stagnation.

While the period of economic depression was harsh on Western economies, I think the op is overstating it. I mean, phrases like 'life became survival of the fittest' are just too broad. Of course, there were people suffering, and there were people doing well. There were people fending for themselves but also people doing their best to help those who were left behind. Churches, charities, as well as women's organizations often focused on helping those who were worst off economically, so it wasn't just survival of the fittest.
In any case, I hope that the world economy is simply stronger now and won't suffer a similar period again (considering that it's been almost 100 years since that happened), but if that does happen, I think Bitcoin will initially go down along with everything else but will recover faster than the global economy because it's not particularly dependent on it.

Bitcoin seems to be treated more and more as an asset, less as a currency. But in reality, it's both. There are people and places that treat it more as a currency, and of course one person can both hodl some BTC and use the rest to pay for something (so, use it as a currency). The fees can be too high for on-chain transactions, but there are centralized solutions, and the fees aren't always that bad with on-chain transactions as well. The fee spike doesn't always happen when the price is rising, so there is no direct dependency here.

Satoshi's identity remains unknown, and Satoshi can't control the price of Bitcoin. The price hasn't been great lately (aside from the last several days). Nobody knows how it will go from where, and whether the price will go down, remain the same or go up in the near future. But despite the increase, the price is still 56% below the All-time high, which means (assuming one believes in full recovery of the price, which is also not guaranteed) it's pretty good.
If the distance between the bull markets of the past is any indication (which it might not be, and there's too little evidence for it to be a strong argument), it's totally realistic that we'll have another bear year.

This does look like an unnecessary amount of steps, and of course it might mean that it's made for surveillance, but IMO there isn't enough evidence just based on this information to say that this is the reason. My first thought would be that it's just unnecessary bureaucracy. I've looked at NS&I google reviews, and people say it's just a very inconvenient service, although some do mention it's the newly introduced changes that make it so.
Also, the issue seems to relate to the UK and this service specifically, not generally, although here I'd add some of my own experience as well. When I lived in the UK, I opened a Revolut account, using a UK phone number, and the account is in GBP. The experience has always been great, but over the last month or so, Revolut keeps popping up a question, asking for what purpose I use the money in this account or something like that, providing 4 generic reply options and not allowing to go further before choosing an option there. And it's not a one-time question, it just keeps reappearing all the time. So on that note, I agree cash and BTC are important and that perhaps the UK does have new requirements for banks to monitor and question what their people are doing.
Thankfully, in my home country the banks are very chill and really don't seem to care unless you cross a certain financial threshold, which I never do because you need to be pretty wealthy and regularly make big payments to cross it.

14. Ilia Topuria
13. Amanda Ribas
12. Justin Tafa
11. Gabriel Santos
10. Brendan Allen
9. Neil Magny
8. Randy Brown
7. Mateusz Rebecki
6. Tabatha Ricci
5. Joshua Van
4. Victor Martinez
3. Jack Jenkins
2. Kleydson Rodrigues
1. Cody Brundage

NOT go the Full Distance 6

Copyright law is not actively enforced in some countries, which allows companies to effectively be imposers of big companies without facing serious consequences. Perhaps that's why Binance can't put an end to that company, I don't know. Or maybe the company doesn't exist on paper, so there's nobody to sue here.
As Bitcoin is pretty popular in Nigeria, I hope people are careful enough to check if this Binance has anything to do with the actual Binance, but that's very unfortunate and people can fall victims, unfortunately.

1 in 10 adults having some cryptos in the US is a pretty high share, I believe (just because it's still a couple of dozens of millions of people). The decrease might not even be statistically significant, it's very small compared to the previous year. But half of these people are pure hodlers (and more than half bought Bitcoin to hodl), it seems, so while they have BTC, they don't use it (or, or maybe not even BTC but any crypto).
It's also interesting that not trusting the banks is the least popular among main reasons of financial uses of Bitcoin in the USA.

From the video, it's clear that people have varied levels of understanding of Bitcoin and its value. Also, honestly, to me there are too many short loud interjections in the video, it's a bit hard to focus. Aside from that, I don't have an understanding of naira's value, so I had to consult with the exchange value a lot.
I know people with varied degrees of familiarity with Bitcoin: people who have the general idea, people who actively engage in crypto trading, but also people who I'm sure have never heard of Bitcoin and have no idea how much it might cost or how it works.
After all, we're still in the early days.

One of your girlfriends, huh?  Ah, I see the op later explained that the meaning was that it's a girl, and she's a friend.
If she wants to try trading, it makes sense that you sent her some BTC onto her Binance account because you can't exactly experiment with trading in a non-custodial wallet.
It's good that're going to tell her about the non-custodial wallets, but hopefully she doesn't mind Binance's KYC and will be able to use the BTC you gifted her.
Bitcoin is a good birthday gift.

I think Bitcoin is just a new aspect of life, another layer added to all the rest. It's like a road one can take, but there are plenty of others around as well. Decentralization works, but it doesn't always work, and it doesn't work for everyone. Sometimes people just want a strong authority, someone in charge who'll take care of things, someone to blame if something doesn't go well. With decentralization, people need to be more responsible, ready to take matters in their own hands and push through the bad times without expecting that something will get fixed.

Sometimes it's somewhat hard to assess failure. For example, did we see a crypto market dot-com bubble? Many altcoins lost their value, sure, but many are still worth much more than their ICO price level was, even if we're talking about projects that didn't deliver on their big central ideas. So what will constitute a failure of the AI market, how will we assess that? Also, it's just an opinion of one guy, based, it seems, on zero evidence. And, that 85% includes those bought out by bigger brands, but I think shouldn't be considered 'out of business'.