BRICS is big on paper, but the USA is powerful in practice. We are yet to see major successes in challenging the political and economic dominance of the US by BRICS. But I don't think that the US is currently interested in direct involvement in military conflicts. They're focusing more on internal politics and also trying to rethink their global approaches, following a series of unsuccessful attempts of military interventions in the past. However, one of the consequences of that is that we no longer live in a unipolar world of one superpower. The global economic and political relations are reshaping, but it's unclear how they will look like in the future.

Banks have their own risk assessment procedures when it comes to loans. If we're talking about proper banks, they normally want to see some financial stability (like a long-term job contract with monthly salary) to feel confident that this person will pay them back. They can't rely on what someone wants to invest it and how that works out. Even if Bitcoin grows and assuming that a bank agrees that it's a potentially good investment, there's a risk of this person profiting and going AWOL, ignoring the bank and the loan. Or that person might get hacked, lose access to one's coins, become a scam victim etc.
They just can't think of all those things and hope they won't happen. So it's not just about knowing good assets, but also about confidence that a particular person who allegedly plans to invest in those assets will pay them back.

I agree that humans should generally be considered the most important resource a country can have. If humans are valued, given opportunities to obtain good education and to implement their business endeavours, that can directly translate into economic success.
On a more personal level, it's also important to establish strong connections with people you can rely on. At the same time, there's a fine line between that and nepotism.
Also, while personal things are important, to some people, their own countries are also important, especially in war situations (I'm talking from experience here as someone whose country was invaded by a foreign power).

Bitcoin - yes, crypto - no. I'm totally okay with payments in Bitcoin, although I must admit that tax-wise and even simply comfort-wise it's easier to get local fiat currency as payment because then you can easily use it directly for anything. But even with that, I wouldn't say no to Bitcoin payments, as it's fairly simple in my country to exchange Bitcoin for local currency when needed. So the only issue is those rare times of extreme fees.
Importantly, it's always possible to just buy some BTC with whatever you're getting your salary in, so it's not a major issue.

1. Usyk
2. No
3. Yes
4. 2

Game 1:  22, 17'
Game 2:  22, 24'

Well, Binance is a rich company, so I suppose paying some fines isn't a big problem for them. I think Binance has bigger problems in the US with the SEC. In the US, they need to pay more than $4 billion in fines. Also, CZ was sentenced by 4 months in prison based on a plea bargain, but that, again, is a fortunate outcome, as it's a very mild prison sentence.
What isn't good with these cases is that Binance is perhaps the most reputable exchange, but even it is facing serious charges. That means that no exchange is safe, in that sense.

The crypto market is volatile, and everyone is aware of that. So a 10% change over a month is nothing major or worth of a serious analysis or discussion. Bitcoin is still very close to the ATH point and well above its usual price range, so I think these are just minor corrections that don't set the trend. It's impossible to say whether the price will go up or down from here because not enough time has passed. If we zoom out the chart to see Bitcoin over the last year, we're still at the top, which kind of looks like a bull market situation to me.

Op is saying that BTC can contribute to managing inflation in El Salvador, but it's important to point out that El Salvador's legal tender (aside from Bitcoin) is the USD, so unlike many other countries, hyperinflation of fiat isn't exactly a problem there, since the USD is very stable.
Adoption of Bitcoin was a bold decision, but it's still unclear how useful it was. It seems that actual Bitcoin usage in El Salvador isn't that high, with many people just using the official wallet at the beginning just to get the state-provided financial bonus. Economic impact is also unclear for now. I'm not saying it was a bad decision, but it didn't lead to any economic miracles either.

I support getting more independent of China, but actually, China is very important in global manufacturing. Take anything you own, and you're very likely to find "Made in China" note on most of those things.
Europe is a very diverse and broadly defined region, so it can't be summarized in one sentence. Russia has natural resources, but so does the Middle East, and so does the US. Also, it's the kind of resources we must globally be moving away from if we don't want climate change to get much worse pretty fast. As for Ukraine, it is important for agriculture, but some countries actually don't like it (for example, Poland has been organizing boycotts to ban Ukrainian products from getting into Poland).
Overall, I think op is oversimplifying things and not taking important factors into consideration.

Unbanked individuals are an interesting but complex topic. If they are unbanked because they don't meet certain requirements that banks can ask for, then Bitcoin can sometimes be a good option for them, but only if they have financial resources to buy some of it. Also, if they are unbanked, it might be hard for them to understand how digital wallets work, as they're likely to be unfamiliar with any kind of handling money apart from handling cash.
Finally, a fiat bank account can actually be something you can use on a daily basis to pay for all sorts of things everywhere, while Bitcoin isn't accepted in most places people regularly visit. Not to mention that in many countries, Bitcoin is taxed, which can be another challenge for unbanked people.

Op is correct that it's hard to evaluate the number of lost coins, since we don't know why some wallets are inactive. I think of them as just inactive, and I don't view them as lost forever.
As for Satoshi's coins, we shouldn't focus on someone else's money.
Bitcoin is scarce by design, which will drive its price up if more and more people want to get some of it. But, thankfully, each Bitcoin is divisible into 100 million satoshis, so we can actually just refer to satoshis rather than bitcoins in the future if the price becomes that high and satoshis become a more relevant indicator of prices. So the issue is not as serious as it might seem at first glance, even if a significant part of coins is lost.

It's important to take action occasionally, I agree with that. But people often have to weigh their potential gains against potential risks, and they often can't afford to take big risks because they have other people (such as their children) relying on them for support.
There is no recipe to being wealthy, and a lot depends on one's starting point, luck, and connections.
So while I support the idea of making mistakes and learning from them, I also think people should have some plan B and not go all in on risky business ideas that might, if they fail, ruin their lives and the lives of those around them.

I'm sure there are tons of people who haven't heard of Bitcoin or have heard of it but didn't pay attention and know nothing about it. Bitcoin is owned by less than 5% of the population. It doesn't mean that 95% are unaware of it, but I believe it means that a significant amount is likely to be unaware.
Some countries did polls on Bitcoin and/or cryptos, so it's easier to understand how many people haven't heard of it there, but I couldn't find trustworthy international data. In the US, only 12% of adults haven't heard of cryptos, for example, as of 2023. But that doesn't mean that the numbers are similar on the global level.

I had to read more of op's replies to get an understanding of op's argument because it wasn't clear from the original post to me. Bitcoin's price is not getting inflated. The price is determined by supply and demand: since the supply is fixed (although still growing slowly) but the demand is increasing over time (as more people get to know Bitcoin and want to try it out), the price grows in the long run. To me, it has nothing to do with Tether, and Bitcoin isn't "controlled by the printers". Sure, Tether is traded a lot against Bitcoin, but that's just out of convenience, since the price of Tether is pegged to the USD.

That's an interesting question, and I'm personally not 100% anti-censorship, so I'd actually support the decision to make it impossible to build NFT-like things on Bitcoin blockchain. But I'm not a part of decision-makers in this case, and it's also clear from this thread and other discussions that it's a divisive matter. Miners probably enjoy high fees, as it's more income for them. Everyone else probably isn't thrilled with high fees, but for long-term hodlers it's an insignificant matter (as they don't move their coins much anyway). Then we have those who are directly affected by high fees, but even among those there are people who see it as a necessary downside of freedom, decentralization, and censorship-resistance.
So even if it's technically possible to do such a fork, I think it's too divisive.

USA is still among the top political and economic powers. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. The USD is the top official reserve currency, with a share of nearly 60%. So yeah, the US is important and the USD is important. If dedollarisation is happening, it's clearly failing to make any major global impact so far.
The stuff about US companies is also relevant, but it's important to note that US private corporations and US government are very different entities, especially since the US is a democracy and a very capitalistic country.

Ouch, that's a very unfortunate story. It's good you didn't bring that person to school to talk about Bitcoin. We can't know everything about our neighbours, and people posing as Bitcoin investors can, unfortunately, sometimes be scammers.
It's good that he got caught, and I hope some action will be taken to punish him for stealing from others and, ideally, to compensate the victims.
I don't know about mixers, but I'm just indifferent to them. I've never used them, and I don't know people who used them, so it just doesn't affect my bubble.

I believe that there are old but still relevant concepts that must be taught at school. But, of course, it's also important to teach something new, so that the new generations have the skills and knowledge that's relevant in the contemporary world.
I think that Bitcoin should be a part of school curriculum, but that's not the same as Bitcoin being a school subject, let alone a core subject. Instead, Bitcoin should be taught as a part of the subject that covers finances (Economics, Financial Literacy, or however it's called in a particular country at schools). Children still need to understand money in general, and have some basic knowledge about banks, loans, fiat, etc.

Sharing mistakes is a good idea, as long as it's done not to ridicule others, but to support each other and learn.
One mistake I've made early on was to trust a custodial Ethereum wallet, which ended up performing an exit scam (or was hacked, that remains unknown).
Another was feeling greedy when the fees were around $15 per transaction at the end of 2017 and not selling any BTC at that point, while ending up selling later at a much lower price.
And I'd also name believing in the potential of altcoins and investing in them as a mistake.