I think how much you earn and what level of life that provides depends a lot on there you are, and what poverty means to you. There are poverty lines, also different for different regions, and then there are broader ways of understanding poverty. To me, being poor means not having enough to meet your very basic needs in food, shelter, and medicine. Being rich is having excess after sustainably covering all your basic needs and some additional needs. And the rest is in-between.
In my country, my income is what the op calls being broke, but as it's a low-income country, I'm actually strongly within middle class here and earning more than the majority of people for sure.

I agree with the op that we shouldn't be overly optimistic about rich influential people and shouldn't forget how they talked about Bitcoin in the past (like Trump did, or in case Elon Musk changes his mind again).
There's been more institutionalization, and Bitcoin without centralized platforms is certainly not for everyone. I think it's not even for most people. But Bitcoin with free non-custodial wallets and on-chain transactions is still out there, still an option. And transaction fee is very good most of the time ($0.71 for the highest priority at the time I'm writing this).
So there are spikes, there are some issues, but financial freedom that Bitcoin initially offered is still out there, still a choice people can make.

I don't think El Salvador has a good motivation to sell BTC. For one, BTC is legal tender there, so it can be spent directly, without the need to sell it. Moreover, Bitcoin is still growing, and El Salvador is probably expecting to benefit significantly from this growth in the future.
But if that does happen, I agree that it won't have a major impact on the market. Symbolically, it won't look good. But in practice, we're talking about less than $1 billion worth of funds, which isn't enough for a price shift.

97 kryptqnick

92 - kryptqnick

60 kryptqnick

Well, I don't think an anti-crypto law would be developed and passed promptly, but that's also not necessary for widespread change of sentiment on the market. Trump is quite unpredictable, so him making a 180-degree turnaround and saying something against Bitcoin would do the trick. Or a crash of a major exchange. Both are somewhat realistic, but not very likely. That being said, bull markets don't tend to last long, and it can just stop without any significant trigger, simply because of running out of FOMO fuel, so to speak.

It's a good proposal, and I hope Amazon will consider it. But 5% is not insignificant, so they might go for a lower amount even if they agree to do it. Moreover, while I initially thoughts about 5% of the market capitalization of over $2 trillion, I then realized that this probably isn't correct. I mean, it's likely that we should count 5% from the worth of assets under management or something like that, and Amazon assets amount to somewhat over $500 billion. It's still significant, but notably different.

Game 1:  26, 18'
Game 2:  26, 22'

1. Yes
2. Under
3. LA
4. 3rd
5. Odd
6. Odd
7. LA
8. SF
9. LA
10. Touchdown

Lovely screenshot by the op! I think this time, Bitcoin has been building up the price gradually, and that there's still room for further growth by the end of this year and maybe in January 2025. I wouldn't expect anything too crazy like $200k, for example, but something like $120k seems pretty realistic to me. In any case, it's great to see that Bitcoin got its expected bull run and reached a new symbolic threshold. I'm sure it's not the last bull market anyway, even if this one is getting close to being over.

During the bear market, people tend to sell Bitcoin less than they sell other coins, and Bitcoin dominance grows. When there's a bull market, Bitcoin is growing, people out of FOMO and excitement people also try their luck with other coins, so the dominance can drop somewhat. It's not a perfect correlation, but I think it's true overall. Right now, Bitcoin is on the rise, and it makes sense for the market dominance to drop somewhat. That being said, it's still very high, and no coins is anywhere near challenging BTC dominance. I think it will stay this way in the future, and the current decrease is a mere fluctuation.

To me, a price manipulation is not merely about reaching a certain price. A particularly high price can be reached without manipulations if some exciting news come through and FOMO moves the market. A sudden crash is also possible without manipulations if there's particularly bad news and people start panic selling. To prove that there is a price manipulation, there should be a sudden and significant price change, paired with facts of major purchases or sales of BTC by a specific actor, and that it was done at least without a clear non-manipulative intent (for example, when authorities of some country sell a lot of seized BTC, I don't consider it a price manipulation even if it affects the price).

Honestly, when a war criminal and one of the main disruptors of global peace mentions Bitcoin, it's nothing good. In fact, due to guilt by association, it can encourage people to oppose Bitcoin if they hate putin. I wouldn't want Russia to actively engage with BTC, as that can lead to more severe crypto regulations by democratic countries. And, on another note, the USD is not and will not be getting weaker, there's no evidence to support that claim.

I believe that largely the object's purpose is defined by its usage. Sure, maybe it wasn't the initially intended purpose, but if it works fine and finds it demand, why not? Theatre used to be mass entertainment, sort of like cinemas or even Netflix is now, but now theatre is this highly intellectual thing for people who appreciate culture. Its function changed over time, but we don't say it lost its identity.
Bitcoin can still be a currency for some people, for some purchases, and in some contexts. For many it's more of an asset, though, and it makes sense, considering how much Bitcoin is growing in value over time. So yes, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

28 - kryptqnick

75 - kryptqnick

Game 1:  52, 25'
Game 2:  52, 22'

14. Alexandre Pantoja
13. Ian Machado Garry
12. Alexander Volkov
11. Bryce Mitchell
10. Doo Ho Choi
9. Dominick Reyes
8. Vicente Luque
7. Bryan Battle
6. Aljamain Sterling
5. Chris Weidman
4. Max Griffin
3. Chase Hooper
2. Joshua Van
1. Lukasz Brzeski

NOT go the Full Distance 6

1. Yes
2. Over
3. DET
4. 2nd
5. Even
6. Odd
7. DET
8. DET
9. GB
10. Touchdown