I became interested in how the index is calculated and what it actually means. It seems that it's a scale from 0 to 100 (at least, according to CNN Business), where the first quarter is extreme fear, then goes fear, then neutrality in the middle, then greed and finally extreme greed. So at this scale, greed at 68 doesn't mean that there's greed at 30, for instance. Greed starts at 51 and is up to 75, so 68 is well into the second half, sure, but there's also a whole section of extreme greed ahead. I also find it interesting that the stock market is currently at its fear stage, so if Bitcoin is in the greed area, it's currently very uncorrelated with the stocks.

The matter of reputation of casinos, forums that discuss gambling and specialized websites that review online casinos can IMO resolve most of the issues concerning fraud and minimize one's risks. It's irrational for a reputable casino to scam its customers because that would mean losing reputation and, in turn, losing more customers, which is undesirable. But yeah, maybe AI can help mitigate some risks here as well.
What I believe is a big problem that AI can fix is that many people don't understand how gambling works, don't understand the theory of probability, skill-based and random games etc. An AI that could really help gamblers with that already exists in a form of linguistic models (ChatGPT, Bing). A gambler can ask whether it's possible to outsmart slots, what's a probability of getting a certain result in dice and other similar things. As an assistant, AI can help avoid misunderstandings which often lead to frustration, anger, belief that one is just very unlucky or that one is being scammed.

The op certainly portrays a pretty interesting life journey where a person tries many things in life. Bitcoin isn't a job or a business, but it can be. It can be a job if you do trading or mining. It can be a business if it's something that uses Bitcoin as a payment or develops something Bitcoin-related (an exchange, a wallet or something else). It can also be a reasonable long-term investment option, but it's important to remember to invest only what one can afford to lose, and thus you need other sources of money which can then be used for investing in Bitcoin.

I try live betting occasionally because sometimes it feels easier to predict the outcome of the match once some time has passed and you see how it's going. But yeah, a hard part is that the odds sometimes change very fast and it can can a couple of tries to approve the bet (because you want to place the bet but while you're choosing the amount you're betting and other similar things, the odds can change and you then need to reconfirm the bet). It's not scamming, it's not manipulations. And it's also not about virtual vs real betting as much as it is about live betting. I didn't have experience where the odds changed so drastically that I wouldn't want to make a bet (if it's over a very short period of time), so I was okay with seeing the opinion sway, basically, and the odds adjusting.
If you are referring by vFootball to virtual (simulated) games and bets on them, I don't think there's any evidence that it was manipulated either, at least not from the original post in the thread. I prefer betting on real events, though, as I think the way humans really interact on the field during the match is more interesting than an AI simulated game and outcome.

I guess how well the banking system works depends on a country and a bank. I've heard many complaints about Germany with online banking often lagging well behind the transactions, the amounts of money being inaccurate and delays being pretty common. But in Ukraine, the banking system of the most popular banks works really well: you can see the transaction instantly, the balance is updated instantly as well, and I've never had a problem of a transaction not reaching me fast enough (unless it's something like an international transfer).
But the op is right that Bitcoin transactions are irreversible and you just need to wait till the first confirmation of a transaction to be sure the receiver got it (although some recommend to wait for more confirmations if the amount of money is big). But that also means that if you somehow make a mistake in the address name or decide to make another transaction because the first one isn't getting to the recipient fast enough, there's no authority to give you your money back. While it's not an issue for me, I know it can be stressful for some.

Tron didn't quite deliver on the decentralized project they promised but it stayed afloat, didn't really betray the investors either. Is TRX a security? I don't know, to be honest. The same with btt tokens. Undisclosed payments for celebrities to advertise crypto projects is a dishonest tactic, but I don't see how it has to do with the SEC's area of competence. Perhaps they'll just choose to settle with the SEC for some amount of money. In any case, I don't expect a long-lasting effect on the market from this, not when it comes to the price of Bitcoin.

26 goals

Bitcoin has been #1 for 14 years. I don't see why such a small time span as 5 years that would change. I believe that the time of high risk of Bitcoin losing its dominance is behind us. It was the time of 2017 ICO and altcoin hype, where so many projects seemed promising and Bitcoin seemed too limited to many people. The market dominance of Bitcoin was gradually dropping and Ethereum came closer than before. But nowadays, many years after those times and seeing that Bitcoin has successfully maintained its status as a #1 currency, Bitcoin seems strong and unlikely to become weaker.

I think it's amazing that you managed to profit enough and invest enough into Bitcoin to buy your own house at such a young age. Even if you have to pay property tax in fiat, it's still a success story, and how taxes are paid is something that's up to the legislators, so it's understandable. But have you paid for the house in Bitcoin directly? Have you found someone interested in exchanging property for Bitcoin directly? Or was Bitcoin a way to accumulate funds to you, but not a means of payment? It was the former, from what I gather (not a direct payment for the house in BTC), but perhaps I got that wrong. In any case, congratulations!

Well, that is great news, right? Montenegro isn't a part of the EU and is a small, quiet country, which is why Do Kwon probably assumed it was a good place to lie low. It's inspiring that the plan didn't work out, and he got arrested there. Scamming people (or grossly mismanaging their funds) who believed in a project and gave lots of money to it is certainly something that should be punished by law. My hope, as usual, is that as much money as possible will be returned to the victims. As for what else happens to this guy, I don't really care. I think the most important thing about financial crimes is to force the perpetrator to reimburse the victims.

The facts that Bitcoin can't be controlled and monetary policies or fixed prices can't really be imposed on it both give financial freedom to people and make all sorts of authorities and traditional economic actors (like banks) wary of it. After all, financial control is very common in current politics and economics, and this sort of lack of control is unprecedented.
As for the necessary steps, the AML regulations already exist, education is slowly and sporadically being implemented, and I think blockchain has seen plenty of investments. What I believe is needed is more trust in individuals and a belief in financial freedom (and responsibility that comes with it), as well as more demand for Bitcoin as a payment, so that merchants are motivated to adopt it.

I believe in some control and regulations. While those in power can often abuse it, that's why there must be a system of checks and balances to minimize the abuse, alongside with a civil society ensuring everything is going alright. I think that expecting people to pay the same kind of taxes they'd pay for their fiat income when they profit from trading or hodling is reasonable. I also believe that it's good when crypto exchanges are regulated to minimize the risks of them scamming people, as well as so that centralized platforms like that follow general economic sanctions when those are introduced.
So yeah, some regulations and some control make sense to me.

Buying low and selling high is a well-known guideline regarding investment, and it doesn't matter how much you can afford to invest to start doing it. Some may say that it's already too late right now because the price was around $20k just recently and is more than $28k now but that's one way to look at it. Sure, maybe the price will fall again. But even the current price is just 40% from the ATH and Bitcoin tends to not just reach the previous ATH but surpass it with each new bull market. So the price is still pretty good and the op is right that the profit can easily double after some time.

It's hard to estimate how much money is needed for a retirement because people have different standards of life, different countries require different amounts of money to cover basic expenses, a person may of may not have additional sources of income at that point, consumer prices can grow significantly over time, there can arise a demand for something like a medical emergency that can't currently be calculated, you can't know how much you'll live etc.
Assuming $1k per month is enough to cover basic expenses of retirement and 30 years is how much time one expects to live after retirement, it gives us an estimate of $360k for that period. Of course, given inflation, it's actually significantly more than that, so let's perhaps double it to $720k. 10 BTC and 100 ETH already cost something close to a half of the required rough amount. I'm sure Bitcoin will cost much more in the future and Ethereum will try to keep up as well. So yeah, I think this amount is enough. But of course, nobody can know for sure and we have no idea what sort of new challenges and demands the future will bring or whether cryptos will be as relevant as they currently are at that point.

13. Cory Sandhagen
12. Holly Holm
11. Nate Landwehr
10. Maycee Barber
9. Manel Kape
8. Chidi Njokuani
7. Tucker Lutz
6. Lucas Alexander
5. Trevin Giles
4. Daniel Da Silva
3. Manuel Torres
2. Victor Altamirano
1. Hailey Cowan

NOT go the Full Distance 5

Is it fair to say it's all out of thin air over 14 years between 2008 and 2022? Some of it surely is, but the economy is also growing because huge new businesses appear, creating new jobs, new demand and offer, so since the charts are for the total assets, I think at least some of that printing has something reasonable justifying it. I agree that the US is playing with fire and has been doing so for a while, but sometimes it's hard to make a better choice than printing when you really need funds to fix something now and deal with the consequences later. That being said, banks should not be bailed out when they fail.
I'm honestly not sure that Bitcoin as a sole legal tender instead of something like the USD would have a better overall effect on the well-being of the population when facing global challenges like the pandemic.

Poverty is a global and structural challenge. It's not right to blame particular people for making wrong decisions, not trying hard enough etc. because it's a fact that our world is build on privileges which some have and others don't, and some things are objectively much easier for some and harder for others with an equal amount of effort made. Poverty is becoming a big problem in my country specifically because we are currently at war, and unfortunately, I don't think Bitcoin can end poverty.
Bitcoin might help some people if they are not truly poor but can actually invest some money and then enjoy an improved quality of life, and maybe pension funds investing into Bitcoin could also help to elevate some people, but generally, poverty should be tackled from various angles and we must remember that the problem is not the lack of resources but the terrible mismanagement of them.
When some go hungry, plenty of food is getting thrown away because of not being bought by anyone or being bought and never eaten. When some are homeless, many houses remain empty with nobody living there, renting them or thinking of buying them. We need all sorts of practices to learn to share and redistribute sources. More importantly, we need a serious worldview shift from 'who doesn't work doesn't eat' to 'everyone deserves to have their most basic needs like basic food and having a safe place to sleep in covered because these are basic human rights'. Once we really get to agreeing on that, we can work on ensuring that everyone gets at least minimal resources and can put an end to poverty.

Unless you live in a country where there's something like an obligatory service if you don't go straight to university, why not take a gap year? I believe that getting a university degree is a way of improving your soft skills, becoming a more organized person, a way of meeting like-minded people and getting to be in an environment that is very different from the one you usually have at school. But I also think people shouldn't rush with such decisions if it's possible to wait and see. If you want to invest some money into Bitcoin and try to spend some time outside the learning space, there's nothing bad about it. You can see for yourself what kind of jobs you can get without a degree in your country, have some time to think whether you want to go to university and what kind of things you'd like to study. In my country, there are lots of people who go to at least some sort of universities or colleges after school, so for almost any intellectual job positions you are expected to have at least some sort of degree. Also, a university is a great chance to form connections, to see how other people start finding jobs and think what sort of jobs you could apply for. But I believe it can vary from one place to another greatly.

We live in a world of variety where one rarely needs to choose one thing over another. I'd gladly choose both fiat and Bitcoin. Fiat is relatively stable, and I'd also want to use my country's fiat because I want to support my country this way during a very difficult time it's having. But Bitcoin is more private and largely quite convenient. If I could use it directly for payments for my basic goods and services, I can't say I'd always do it, but I would certainly do it from time to time. Bitcoin is better for savings because it grows in value over time, unlike fiat, but fiat is way more known and accepted, which is also something that matters when making a choice.

A bank is a place where a person come to deposit money. It's also an institution that enables online transfers of money. At least, these are the functions of banks that people usually use. If you use Bitcoin, you can download a non-custodial wallet, transfer your BTC there and then make Bitcoin transactions to other Bitcoin addresses when you want to do it. So in a way, you are your own bank this way. That being said, it is also true that due to huge limitations set by where Bitcoin actually is accepted as a form of payment, people can't usually pay the rent, the bills or mortgage with it. But that's the problem of acceptance of a currency, not a problem of the idea of Bitcoin replacing a bank.