Only straight to FIAT. I think it's best to set intermediary goals and on each withdraw about 30%.
I know that people like to convert to Bitcoin or Ethereum, but it's not really beating the market, is it?

Truey!

I was planning to see a x10 return, but right now I would be satisfied with x2 (considering the beginning of the year as a starting point)

For speculative purposes, ETH is better at the moment. It had a stronger fall recently and it is still a little bit undervalued when compared to Bitcoin. While you could, realistically have BItcoin x3 by the end of the year, you could actually have around x5 on ETH.
"Could" is the important word here, don't forget.

It is good that people are having different options now.
By now you could protect your investment by converting into a stable coin, say Tether (let's not get into the discussions of pros and cons of this now).
Now it seems we will also have a sort of Blockchain insurance.
Finally, we are also waiting for a third possibility and that is converting back to FIAT. Yes, it is possible, but rarely directly and it rarely makes sense. Additional adoption is required.

Although I am very supportive of Bitcoin, it is rough when you have to accept something so volatile simply because you don't have other means.
However, it is a good thing that people found something they can at least remotely rely on. A few years back it was not possible (just consider what Vietnamese people had gone through for instance).

Hi everybody, I already posted a part of this in some form on another topic, but I actually think this idea is not bad and deserves a topic of its own (self-praise at its worst, khm khm).

As we all know, ICO's are a great way of introducing new projects and getting relevant funds. Another well-known type of distribution is an airdrop. Airdrop can be an additional way of distribution coexisting with ICO (technically ICO is a funding process, and actual distribution is actually an airdrop, however, when talking about "airdrops" we usually mean - free distribution) or a sole way of initial distribution.

The other thing we also probably all know is that it is "normal" for a market gaining a lot of interest to attract scammers as well.
This is a well-known fact for regulated markets as well, so it's not a miracle that it is existing in unregulated markets (in a more threatening way, I might add).

Hence the market needs to be regulated. Here is where most of the newbies make a first of mistakes and initiate FUD reactions to bombastic news one-liners, mixing "regulation" with "prohibition".

Regulation is a good thing - those that don't get that by now should start, from this or some other moment, the sooner the better.
Let's move on.

One regulation that came into force very recently is a so-called Know-your-customer, or more poluarly - KYC.
However, in a current state of things, I consider KYC to be hazardous, really a weapon for various information scoopers.

The intent of KYC is good, however, usually, you need to send your data (with your real name, address, a copy of identity card or passport etc) through for KYC approval in order to apply for an ICO or to apply for an airdrop... generally - you need a KYC approval to get yourself whitelisted.

Not to say that you should check a project before sending your data, but usually that requires time, both in the sense of one you don't have and in the sense of a simple technicality - almost everybody can write a decent looking project, a front page, with nothing but thin air to support it; it is obvious that people need time to see through it and determine it is a scam.

Hence I recommend the following regulation approach:
1. Announce the need for KYC approval at the beginning of the campaign.
2. Request KYC at the end of the campaign.

That way everything will be transparent (1.) and people will have extra time to check the validity of the project before submitting their data (2.).
I actually think this should be added to the regulation case.

Feel free to recommend other regulations within this topic as well, not just for KYC.

Ma znam, ali rekoh da se našalimo malo. Šampanjac će još malo pričekati, podbadanje ne mora

I think the best approach would be to:
1. Announce the need for KYC approval at the beginning of the campaign.
2. Request KYC at the end of the campaign.

That way everything will be transparent (1.) and people will have extra time to check the validity of the project before submitting their data (2.).
I actually think this should be added to the regulation case.

Your reasoning is good, and I haven't seen a good analysis on this, but I think that the power of the whales outpowers the power of small investors. So it will be - whatever they need.
This shows how exactly centralized Bitcoin is.

Čega? 

Iskoristio bih priliku da čestitam iluvbitcoins, nadam se da će ovo proći.
Da li ovo znači da te sada trebamo dobro izvrijeđati jer nam je možda posljednja prilika? 

I don't know if this statistics will prove any good, but Cardano is a number 2 by Github activity: https://www.cryptomiso.com/.

Just observe who bought Bitcoin recently (Soros, Rothschild,...). Then ask yourself - why. Or/and before that, ask yourself - do those guys usually loose or earn a lot of money?

You know what else is a roller coaster?
A roller coaster.
The only question is whether you are enjoying it or not. If not - better stay out of it.

Paper money will be banned entirely?
I wouldn't call it banned, but will be out of the use someday, surely

How long do you think that happens?
Are we talking about the world or particular contries, because some of the countries are already testing it in certain municipalities? If we are talking about whole world - many, many years, some people still don't have internet or digital money. Well, many people don't have money at all.....

Would it work?
Why not? I, for instance, use it less and less, and I only use it because cards are not accepted at some place (and they should be)

What security and privacy risks would it raise?
None whatsoever, it is easier to protect a card then to protect paper money.

And how would public and privately issued monies interact?
This is the most interesting of your questions. I believe we are all keeping an eye on the Bitcoin vs Banks case..... However, there is one thing you might not know - almost all of the banks issuing money are privately owned. Hence - we already have that system enforce. You can observe how it works..... The problem with this system is that it is tightly controlled by those that only want profit for themselves. Cryptocurrencies could make a case for decentralisation (are not making it yet though, rather the opposite)

Why people trick other people for their own benefit, why do Governments invest in rockets rather than in the medical system, why.....
The answer to all those questions is the same - human nature.
"A human nature" is also an excuse for those of weak character to do so.

You can control it the same way you can control paper or usual digital money - buy managing the circulation or converting to a security.
With Bitcoin it is impossible. The other possibility is to control it through speculation, but you have to be a big player, a whale.

It is the same with all that is new. First it is not interesting, then it becomes interesting, and finally, everybody starts following it, more or less.
It is normal that in this "overhype" phase we have a relatively whole lot more non-quality users, but we also do have an absolutely greater inflow of quality users as well.

So - relatively speaking - you are right, and absolutely speaking - you are not right. More and more good, technically or economically skilled people who trust the project are joining every day, however much more of those looking for short-term profit are joining too.

Very interesting indeed, I wish you a good luck. How often do you plan to update this book?