1.  Conlan
2.  MD
3.  2

Game 1:  31, 13'
Game 2:  31, 10'
Game 3:  31, 23'

Hm... A situation is called unforeseen because you can't really predict it in advance. I think a fairly realistic (because, in parts, it's already happening) and very challenging situation for Bitcoin would be limited Internet access. It can be in a form of very serious blackouts (because of wars, global warming or something else like cyberattacks/energy crisis) or severe regulations (like the recent shutdown in Pakistan). Such processes can be very disruptive because we rely on access to the Internet to use Bitcoin.

The circulating supply is 19 million coins, and some coins are likely to be lost, so let's say 1 million is 7% of the total. It's a huge transaction, for sure, and a transfer like that would make the news and cause a lot of speculation. But if it's literally just sending BTC from one wallet to another (which doesn't have to mean that someone's selling the coins at all), then I only imagine it would congest the network, maybe cause a spike in transaction fees (ChatGPT says this assumption makes sense because a larger transaction occupies more block space, but I see some in the thread have a different opinion).
In any case, there's no reason for the price to go down in this situation because the movement of coins doesn't mean they're being sold. I think the impact on the price depends on the details and how the news is framed. If it's framed as some old legendary address suddenly getting alive, people can get excited rather than feel panic over it, but if it's framed as a huge dump of coins by a whale, then it can lead to panic.

Central banks are key monetary authorities of particular countries. Buying Bitcoin miners is just outside their professional competence, and so is investing in Bitcoin. What good would it bring to their respective countries and the strengths of fiat currencies? Trying to buy mining farms will suddenly raise the demand, making mining more popular and more expensive. Trying to buy out bitcoins would once again raise the demand a lot, which means the price and market cap of Bitcoin would grow, making the task harder to fulfil. There's no point to do that, it would require immense resources, and I'm not sure if it's possible (because of the growth of demand in case any entity tries to buy out all BTC).

The BRICS initiative seems like a joke at this point. Of course, the dollar isn't ideal and can fluctuate, but it's pretty stable, certainly better than many local fiat currencies. More importantly, dollar has a really high liquidity, it can be easily exchanged for other currencies and many other things. Russia accumulated tons of Indian rupees and is now having trouble of what to do with them because the interest in rupees is much lower than in currencies like the USD.
Finally, matters like the reserve currencies you use and loans you take have a political significance. It's a form of being friendly towards certain countries and of sharing their values.

I think it's really nice if a bank or something bank-like is giving customers a bonus payment because they had a good year. I'm not sure that the restrictions are what made some banks profitable, but then again, it's possible. At least there can be a correlation there. It may be unexpected to people from other countries, but Ukrainian banks are doing really well now, during the war. For example, in January 2023, 90% of Ukrainian banks made the highest revenue since the start of the full-scale war, but also, the banking sector accumulated reserves in 2022 which are 35x higher than in 2021. Financial restrictions were also introduced because of the martial law. I don't think there's a strong case for a causal link here, but it's an interesting correlation.

To be honest, I don't understand how a casino can be sued for someone betting more than they wanted to. If a person has an addiction, this person needs help and shouldn't be gambling at all, but it's not the responsibility of casinos to figure it out. If a person doesn't have an addiction, then it's just a lack of personal responsibility, which again isn't casino's fault.
I think casinos can survey their players, issue warnings or something like that as an act of goodwill, but they have no legal or moral responsibility to do that. I can't imagine an alcohol shop stopping someone from buying alcohol if it looks like a big order because, you know, the shop is getting revenue from the purchases. And it's not like a person can then sue the shop because they let the guy overspend on alcohol.

I'm lucky to not have such a routine, and I don't imagine it for myself. But the downside is that I barely ever get 2 full days off per week, even though generally, I believe that people should work less and rest more.
I think what helps is if you like your job and thus resting is not the only thing you look forward to. I try to do things that I like, even though I could probably do things I like less but which would pay better. My priority is my well-being, feeling like I'm living a life worth living without seeking out the typical expected things like a secure high-paying full-time job, a house, a car etc.
I don't know what sort of skills and experience you have, op, but I do things like teaching, translating, researching, and writing. Each of them could be a full-time job, some could be 9-5 jobs. But I just never go down that road and instead am largely self-employed or seek part-time jobs. Life should bring joy, but I understand that some are less privileged and have fewer options to ensure that they like what they do. To me, it's important to understand first what sort of jobs would bring you joy, what sort of things you're willing to give up for them, and which options are realistic in your particular setting.

While genes seem to play a role in one's inclinations, capabilities, and traits, the environment and upbringing are crucial as well. It's also often hard to circle out the determining factors because in real life everything is intertwined.
Of course, if someone has an inherited disorder that significantly impairs one's intellect, it can be hard to grasp what Bitcoin is and how to use it (just as it would be hard for such a person to grasp many things that most people are capable of learning). Addiction is another thing that seems to have a genetic predisposition, and trading can be a very bad idea in that case. So there are things that can make it worse for a person than average people have it, but I don't think there are things that can truly help one out that are determined genetically or by personality traits.

I don't think relying on newborns when thinking of Bitcoin adoption is very helpful because, well, they're newborns (so it'll take 18 years till they're allowed to invest), and because of child mortality.
Of course, knowing about Bitcoin is necessary for investing in Bitcoin, but it's also insufficient. Education is important, and telling people here and there about Bitcoin is useful, but only if they want to hear about it and if it feels safe to tell them about it. Introducing Bitcoin into school education (as some are doing) is a great way to reach the children and make them aware of Bitcoin. Bitcoin being mentioned in movies and TV shows is also helpful to at least spark initial interest.

Bitcoin is indeed volatile, but my main concern isn't with that. I just feel like having any single income source is risky and something that makes you a very dependent person. You can get fired from a job, or you may want to quit but feel too insecure about doing that because then you lose all of your income. I don't do any particular thing full-time and don't intend to do it, unless it's a case of extraordinary circumstances. Doing a bit of this and a bit of that helps to be a freer person, I believe, and it helps mitigate the risks that come with any jobs or from BTC's volatility.

Will the bull run happen in the next 2 years? Nobody knows. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it likely? Let's think about it.
In December 2013, Bitcoin went very close to $1k before gradually dropping. The price started consistently rising near the end fo 2016, and then there was a bull market throughout 2017. So, it took Bitcoin 3 years to start consistently growing, a bit more for the price to fully recover and then go up from there. Then the price had its occasional ups and downs but was largely down enough to call 2018-2020 the bear market years, till around October 2020 when the price started rising. So it took almost 3 years for the bull market to come and 3 years for the full recovery (and then some). Then it was pretty much the bull market till the beginning of May 2021, then a few unfortunate months and the price went up again, so August-November 2021 were months of the bull market. Then the bear market started, which also had its ups and downs, but 2022 wasn't great and 2023 is so-so. We've been 1.5 years into the bear market, and the previous two times it took the price around 3 years to recover and to definitely show the signs of the bull market.
History doesn't have to repeat itself, and there isn't enough data to make strong predicitons based on what we have so far with Bitcoin. But it's the only thing we have, so to me it seems that the next 2 years should be enough, and a bull run is likely.

I'll tell you about my approach to my own life, and it will get clear why I disagree with Musk. I'm okay with going somewhere and working there if it's something that can't be done from home or can be done worse from home. So, for example, when I worked as a school teacher, I was okay going to the school to physically be in the classroom with children because that's not something that can be done from home. There are online schools, sure, but I do see the benefit of physical presence of people in one room during lessons and additional benefits it brings like socialization of students during the breaks. But I also tried a job for a short time where I went to an office to just literally sit in from of my laptop and do stuff on the laptop. That's a kind of job to me where I don't see why I need to be physically there. I quit that job very fast and since then I never agree to jobs that require going to an office for doing something that can be done just as well from home.
So, if I apply it to myself, I don't think it's wrong to apply it to working from home or not from home in general. And thus I don't see it as morally wrong to work from home. It's also not the best choice for everyone, as some enjoy socialization at work, some prefer a strict work-life balance where the work stuff doesn't enter the home space, and some have kids or something else that makes it uncomfortable to work from home.

Argentina's economic situation has been terrible for a long time, and huge inflation is among the issues that have been around for a while there as well. It's a vicious circle, as they keep printing the currency, trying to make the situation better, but that only makes it worse because the inflation keeps rising.
I'm not an economist, so I don't know how such a terrible situation can be reasonably managed, but I'd try something experimental, such as adopting Bitcoin as a legal tender (El Salvador style). Bitcoin's instability is actually likely to be a big relief compared to the fiat inflation there, and it's a currency that's at least very different and can't be driver to hyperinflation. I honestly think that while it might not solve everything, it won't hurt and might even help.

Let's start with what a financial pyramid is, and here I'm relying on my understanding plus Investopedia. A financial pyramid is a centralized project where those closer to the top can benefit by taking the money of those below them. It relies on promising unrealistic returns, and people who fall for it become the victims. It eventually collapses when no new victims (or not enough new victims) are found.
Bitcoin is decentralized, not a company, not recruiting anyone. When the price goes up, all investors benefit equally (if it's a 10% rise, it's a 10% rise for everyone). I don't think that new investors are necessary for the price to go up, even though it generally helps. More demand can be generated within a given number of users, and an increase of users doesn't directly lead to an increased price.
'Cryptocurrency' is a very general term, too broad. Some crypto projects may be scams, perhaps even built as financial pyramids. But it doesn't make the whole market or a concept of cryptocurrency a pyramid in any way.

I don't think it's purely propaganda, but I don't believe in the default either. There's always a risk to money printing and raising the debt ceiling, and something should be done about it. Unless there's a perception of a big threat, things normally don't change. So I think the default rhetoric is meant to big this big issue that unites people and their political representatives, pushing for more financial accountability of the state and stopping to rely on borrowing even more money (even though in this particular situation it may be the fastest or the only way out). The US will be fine, even though they're playing with fire.

If we look at economic direction on the level of a country, I think it really depends on a specific country. Some are rising, some are getting worse, some are just in stagnation. But if it's about the global economy, I think that it's growing, and the direction of growth is quite clear. Recessions are temporary setbacks, pauses or slowdowns of this process. The issues I see are not those of recessions. It's an issue of the wealth gap growing, the issue of huge distribution problems. The world is making enough overall, enough to cover the basic needs of the total population. But apparently the idea that nobody must die of hunger, suffer from malnutrition, die due to incapability to afford basic medicine or have no roof under which to sleep is just too radical, leftist, woke, or whatever. That is disturbing to me.

But that's if it's about investment. Teaching kids what money is, how it works, and how it can be used is IMO totally normal and can be done at a very young age. Kids need to understand money, what it can buy and what reasonable spending it, and getting some basic notions of different kinds of money (including Bitcoin) seems like a very neutral and age-appropriate topic to me.
Oh, the op mentioned that it was a maths lesson, and I've remembered that I teach the basics of maths and logic to a 7-year-old, and one of the official books for the subject actually has tasks that work with money denominations (like dollars and cents), how they add up etc. So money can already be in the program, and mentioning Bitcoin is just a reasonable addition from a teacher in such a case.

2% isn't a lot, but can we really know whether the figure is true? I don't believe they really back up all their USDT with something like fiat cash and other meaningful things. But Tether's market capitalization is nearly $82.8 billion, so I suppose they need decent reserves to keep the coin afloat, and $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin isn't a big share of that. Well, Bitcoin is available to anyone who's willing to invest, regardless of their faith in Bitcoin or intentions. If they want to buy more, it's a very abstract notion. If they announced a multi-billion-dollar investment, that could give a boost to the price.