I think I remember discussions of this paper, and while it is available online, I believe it was not published in an academic journal and thus wasn't peer-reviewed. So there can be big mistakes here that won't be spotted by people without very good higher education in economics.  In any case, the arguments seem to be that gold is less risky (because it's less volatile) but has less liquidity and is more inconvenient (because it's physical, has to be transported and stored, etc.), whereas Bitcoin is easier to obtain and store, but is risker because it's more volatile. That seems right to me, but I would expect banks to go for gold way more than for cryptos because volatility is too big of a gamble when you need to stabilize your economy.

I haven't used cryptos with private blockchains and I don't think that banning them will lead to eventually banning all cryptos. Also, the EU is just a part of the world, and others might not follow. However, I believe strong research must be conducted before making such decisions. It should be investigated whether the amount of illicit activities has increased over time, whether this increase can be attributed to cryptocurrencies and what part of it is done using private blockchains (and which ones). Then assessments must be made to determine if the ban is going to significantly decrease illicit actions or if criminals would simply switch to something else. Bans of currencies are limiting the freedom of people, so such limitations better be very well-justified.

My first guess when I started reading the op was that it's Russia, so it's good that this option is being discussed.  Russia has foreign debt payment issues due to sanctions, it has enough finances to afford tons of gold, and they did something very similar to returning to the gold standard to stabilize their fiat back in spring. So these is an obvious need for gold, and also obvious reasons to buy it secretly, to avoid sanctions.
I must say I'm not pleased with how little the sanctions seem to have impacted Russia, allowing it to comfortably continue spending hundreds of millions of dollars per day of the war for a very long time, and they can probably do it for another year if not more. If they're buying lots of gold, this can help them stabilize even further.

AFAIK, Japan has a major problem with the nation getting older and older. It's partly due to a culture of lots of respect for the elderly, partly due to a high stage of development which allows people to live till older age. Given that cryptos are fairly new, and the main user base seems to be fairly young, it wouldn't be surprising if Japan is falling back in this regard. That being said, I thought Japan was generally crypto-friendly and is currently working on becoming even friendlier. After all, cryptos are officially legal there, the tax is progressive, and now Binance is entering it.

The KYC obligation regardless of the sums a person is dealing with is something I find unfair because people can often exchange fiat currencies to a certain point without KYC, and I feel like the legislation should not make it tougher for Bitcoin than for fiat cash. As for taxes, they depend on a country and its legislation heavily, and it is something people should try advocating for relaxing in their countries if the taxes there are unfair.
I think Bitcoin's future is largely as an investment option but also somewhat as a payment method, and it is the future of regulations, but we can try ensuring that the regulations are fair and mild.

The idea of pre-planned series of big crypto scams sounds like conspiracy theory stuff to me, to be honest. As for whales, I believe the concept is overestimated. We have a relatively small number of Bitcoin addresses that contain the vast majority of BTC, but we don't know how many of these addresses belong to single individuals, and in companies, things are often decided collectively, and some things are more likely to happen than others. Moreover, is there any evidence that it is the very rich addresses moving their funds that play a crucial part in the price dynamics of Bitcoin? I don't think so. And since 'whales' as big powerful players that manipulate the market don't sound too real to me, I don't think people should be or think like them. What people should do is be mindful of where they store their money and which projects they choose to support.

When I read the post, I thought about those tables with months and how the price changed in different years, so it's great that DdmrDdmr posted it, and December seems to be a 50-50 kind of month historically, so even if we rely on the past behaviour to predict future behaviour, it's wrong to assume that it will be a good month. I hope it will be, but there's no reason it has to be. So far, we're just one day in, and maybe the market isn't ready to change the tide yet. We should be morally prepared for whichever outcome comes next.

Brazil's population is more than 200 million people, so it's a huge step in Bitcoin adoption. The president might not sign the law, of course, if he wants to create an inconvenience during his last weeks in office, but hopefully given the support of the parliament and a change of president soon, it won't be a big issue for this country. If it's recognized as a payment method, am I correct to assume it means that it's not getting taxed, just like fiat currencies aren't taxed? Of course, income taxes are a separate thing, but at least it isn't a property, so no VAT is applicable?

It could be a set of natural causes, some could be more than that, but it doesn't seem like there's anything related to being crypto billionaires there specifically. Moreover, while crashing on a private helicopter is something that would not have happened without the wealth, dying in one's sleep or drowning are quite possible without it. I would not attach too much meaning to these events, and I generally agree with others that there is probably nothing to these situations other than people dying of natural causes. Of course, having immense wealth and being public about it makes a person a target, but it does not mean that these particular people were killed or that crypto wealth carries more risk than any other wealth in terms of becoming a target.

22'

After the ICO market plummeted and it turned out that even some of the most promising and well-funded projects can't deliver according to expectations, I barely followed the next big things. Some of them were just hype, others managed to cut out a niche for themselves (like NFTs). I don't know what the next craze will be (maybe CBDCs at some point), but I don't think it will revolutionize the industry. Best case scenario, it has its brief popularity and then remains something occasionally remembered and used by others. If ICOs couldn't make Bitcoin less significant, I don't think anything can, until we have a major breakthrough which doesn't seem to be around the corner.

Satoshi being from a particular country wouldn't make this country more into Bitcoin or more active on the forum (or specifically on local boards), especially since nobody knows Satoshi's identity and country of origin. Moreover, local board activity doesn't mean that 'the population of Russians in this forum is higher than other countries'. It might just mean that while other nations tend to speak English and take part in the main sections of the forum, fewer Russians speak English well and/or are willing to communicate in it and prefer the local board. Furthermore, it's a big exaggeration to count all who speak Russian as Russians. Ukrainians are often fluent Russian speakers, Belarusians as well, and there are very sizeable numbers of Russian speakers in other countries like Kazakhstan or Estonia. Which can again significantly contribute to the local board posting while not meaning that there are more Russians here than everyone else. So the data on local board doesn't even say that Russians dominate the local board sections, let alone that Russia is huge on Bitcoin adoption or that Satoshi is Russian.

1.  Fury
2.  Under 6.5 Rounds
3.  Round 6

30'

12'

57'

It's important to think about these things, and 32 thousand more deaths than average in the mildest winter is still significant. What the chart doesn't and can't project, though, it how many people will die in Ukraine, as Russia is heavily targeting critical infrastructure which can lead to lack of heating and people freezing because of that. Moreover, I would consider the extra deaths to be due to Russia's war because this is the reason of the energy crisis, after all (as the Economist article also seems to do, by the way). The model is assuming things, though. The article says that normally, energy price changes did not contribute to death changes, but they assume this time will be different because of a huge energy price change. We'll see if that will be true.

It's good to hear that there will be a special authority from now on to oversee the crypto-friendly policies of El Salvador and evaluate their efficiency. I think it shows a more serious approach than when the president just decides to purchase some BTC or remind people about Bitcoin on Twitter. This could help work on a coherent strategy, analyse downsides and correct previous approaches. If they make a state mining farm using clean energy in El Salvador, that could be pretty interesting as well, and something for this new office to assess in advance and plan out.

I don't keep money on the exchanges because there's no need to do that if you aren't a trader  (choosing a non-custodial wallet isn't that hard), but I understand why people would do that. We live in the world full of authorities, and people are used by now to storing money in their bank accounts, where the money isn't really theirs but is managed in hopefully a good way by the company. So it's natural to look for something like a crypto bank, a reputable company, and rely on them. If you have troubles with your exchange account, you can contact support, restore access to your account (if you lost it). If it's a non-custodial wallet, it's your sole responsibility to keep your money safe, but also ensure you don't lock yourself out of the wallet. So why not relieve oneself from responsibility and then blame someone else if things go wrong?

27'