|
I agree with the op. Bitcoin and Bitcoin community are strong enough to not require any particular state or private actor's endorsement to perform well. Of course, particularly influential people and states can affect the market because potential buyers/sellers can change their mind based on something that happens. But regardless of whether the impact is positive or negative, it's an open market, so there are usually corrections over time.
Bitcoin can grow without the US support, although it is easier when the head of the world's most economically and politically powerful state endorses it.
|
|
|
|
|
Malaysia isn't a small country by population, and around 20 million of its people are Muslim. So this is a decision that affects 20 million people, it is quite significant. I would say it's good news because it means legal recognition of Bitcoin as something legitimate and a means of payment. However, I don't understand from the article whether Zakat is to be paid in Bitcoin directly or in local currency but for gains related to Bitcoin.
Can anyone clarify?
|
|
|
|
|
1. New Zealand
2. New Zealand
3. 2
4. 8
|
|
|
|
|
I find it very unfortunate when a country rapidly changes a policy and stops funding something that is vital and on which many human lives depend. Even the stop of USAID has some impact like that because some of the programs funded through it were also about crucial medical care.
Withdrawal from the WHO will have a negative impact, and I don't think it will help the US in any way either. There is currently nobody big enough to step in, unless a country like China decides to replace the US and use this as a great opportunity for spreading its influence. That is why even if the US wants to reduce spending, there should be long periods of transition to make sure there is enough time and options for others to step in.
|
|
|
|
As the adoption of Bitcoin increases, I think it would be something worth implementing for the government to include Bitcoin as an option for workers to choose for their retirement savings.
Let's say as a worker, instead of the normal 401(k)s, 403(b)s for the US, State pension for the UK and CPS for Nigeria, the employee can choose Bitcoin for retirement savings. The government creates a wallet for such employee and adds the address to the escrow service used in paying those that choose Bitcoin for retirement benefits and sends the equivalent of the Fiat contributions monthly. The employee has the wallet address and can monitor inflows into the wallet on a monthly basis, but is unable to access the wallet since the corresponding seed phrases is retained by the government until his retirement period when full transfer of ownership would be initiated.
I feel Bitcoin enthusiasts would really prefer this option since it would be another opportunity for the government to be DCAing on your behalf and you're indirectly holding for a long period of time (20 - 35 years) or any duration of your active service as the case may be.
The profitability potential of such investment would be mind-blowing at the retirement of such employee, he can be able to live off his the investment of his active years of service. The value of his Bitcoin would be much higher compared with the what he should've had if he should receive fiat benefits.
This is just me thinking out of the box on other possible ways of accumulating Bitcoin, what's your thoughts on this?
It's an interesting idea, but even though I believe in Bitcoin, I wouldn't subscribe to something so long-term and not under my control for 100% BTC savings. I think that making some savings in fiat is still a good idea because Bitcoin is volatile. An alternative and, in my opinion, more realistic solution would be for pension funds that work via investing the money into low-risk assets (it doesn't work this way everywhere, it depends on a country) to invest some of the funds into Bitcoin, in a way that they invest into other assets. Although giving a choice of a BTC retirement savings fund does sound very nice as well, as long as a person can choose to invest a part of the funds rather than all the funds that go toward retirement this way. |
|
|
|
|
The way the poll is framed and the question is raised doesn't allow for answering that it will not happen and it's not a matter of 10+ years, even.
Bitcoin is a choice, a matter of freedom. The question of buying Bitcoin is a question of the price and the amount to buy, and that's how it will be in the future as well.
I don't think there will be a time when you're too late to buy and are truly suffering from not owning Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
It very sad to know that despite the amazing things bitcoin has done in the crypto space many are still doubting it to be scam. Not knowing it value and potential that can change there life completely.
Investing in bitcoin could bring you life time fortunes because it appreciate in value over time, however, delay in bitcoin investment due to reason best known to you is automatically setting you backwards.
Message to bitcoin investors : stop the delay, keep buying (investing) bitcoin in large portion as you can, because Bitcoin is nowere close to it's peak.
I've known about Bitcoin since 2013 or so, and I have been involved since 2015. So it's been around 10 years for me, and it's been an interesting road with many lessons and some mistakes along the way. However, I believe it is completely normal for people who are new to it to be wary, to take their time to figure out whether they want to invest in Bitcoin or not. I do believe that Bitcoin will continue growing in the future, but significant growth can easily take another decade, and it might also not happen. So it makes sense to do research and make informed decisions instead of buying Bitcoin out of FOMO. |
|
|
|
|
I think that since these predictions are not based on sources, they are speculations, and thus the thread should be moved to Speculation board within Economics.
Low $100k for BTC isn't realistic. As we can see, it's already significantly lower than that.
As for the USA, I don't think we'll see a major rate cut in the next three months, mainly because Trump's governing style is quite chaotic, and his rapid decisions can have some positive and some negative economic impact. So I don't think the Fed will risk easing the restrictions at a time of such instability.
As for Europe, the inflation rate for EUR is actually expected to drop, so I'd disagree on that as well.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, an advice would be precisely how the op explained why he didn't encourage his friend to invest: Get your financial situation straight and stable first, consider buying Bitcoin later. Bitcoin is volatile, buying it is a risk, and people shouldn't risk what they can't afford to lose.
Now, if a person can earn Bitcoin, that's a different story, but there should again be an understanding that basic needs come first, saving up this BTC comes second.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, Bitcoin is still in the bull market, still priced well and being strong. But of course, it's good to have some targets in mind, both the bottom and the top, having a course of action prepared in advance to be less concerned.
I know I am okay with Bitcoin losing, say, 60-70% of its value (compared to the ATH point), as this has often happened before, and Bitcoin recovered each time. But I'd be concerned if Bitcoin starts losing value due to very clearly novel circumstances (not just bans by some countries, decisions of rich people, or exchange crashes, but something way more serious like a nuclear war, leap in quantum computers etc.). Or if Bitcoin loses over 85% of its value, then I'd be really concerned this might be the end.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree with specific numbers because the cost really depends on the scale of conflict and which countries are involved. But I do agree that in general, it is more beneficial to avoid wars and cooperate. Now, here's where I see a big problem: all countries have agreed (by being a part of the UN) that there are fixed recognised borders of countries, and you can't just go and grab the land of someone else's country because you feel like it. Unfortunately, some countries disagree, most notably Russia. But then, if your land is invaded, your people are killed and the occupation occurs, of course you are likely to defend and to fight back. That leads to more deaths, more money spent on the military, but it's important to remember that it is often clear who is at fault and for what.
I'm all for the world in which such basic international law points are upheld and in which violations are dealt with harshly and swiftly, so that nobody else thinks of doing that. Then we can cooperate and live just fine. Unfortunately, so far, it doesn't seem this is where we're heading, on the global scale.
|
|
|
|
|
Game 1: 30, 33'
Game 2: 30, 28'
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with others who noted that Bitcoin is not as dependent on Trump as some might believe. It was already on the bull run before Trump, and I don't think the market would look very different right now if Harris had won.
But as for $150k this year, I think it's too high for one bull run. Something like $120k: sure, maybe. But I think it'll take a few years for Bitcoin to surpass $150k, in another bull run.
|
|
|
|
|
There are some things in life you can just try and see how it goes, and just learn along the way through experience. Dancing, riding a bike, many cases of cooking fall under this category. But there are other things, which entail certain risks, and where it's better to be informed before moving forward. Medicine, employment contracts are examples of this. To me, Bitcoin is also closer to this second category, as it is a volatile currency, there are tons of scams around it, a lot of misinformation, and it is fairly easy to make very big mistakes (like losing a password or sending money to the wrong address).
So knowledge is indeed important and empowering.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not going to use DeepSeek, no matter how advanced it gets. To me, it is an important matter of choosing not to partake in Chinese propaganda and support of its authoritarianism. But, unfortunately, I am quite sure that many people don't care about it as much, or they believe that the US is just as bad, so it doesn't matter. And because of that, it can become very successful. That being said, I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a threat to the US economy.
As for open-source, there've been open-source AI models one can locally run and toy with for a while now. I think it's more about a major competitor appearing, as China is powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
Informal economies are big sometimes. I understand that, as I live in a country where it's considered to be as big as the formal one by some estimates. But that still has its major downsides, as this 'informal' economy isn't taxed nearly as much, so these resources don't go to support transportation, roads, medicine, schools, or whatever else relies on taxpayers' money (that also depends on a country).
But after reading the article on the Economist, I think that China is in trouble, and that the problem is basically that they're trying to regulate the economy and set the prices instead of letting the market dictate the market and opening up their economy more. But the situation is already quite bad, so there are now risks of opening it up, leading to even more loss of value (because state-controlled evaluation is so far off from reality). Thus, they'll probably tighten the regulations, which is probably good short-term, but exacerbates the problems in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that cases are different and circumstances are different. Apart from your actual effort you're putting into what you're doing, there are factors like your social background (and that directly affects the kind of upbringing and education you received), and luck (which country you happened to be born in and what happens there throughout your life; which people you happen to come across and connect with; which job opportunities you happen to get).
I work hard and I am doing well. But I am sure that there are other people working hard who weren't as lucky as myself in getting certain opportunities, as well as others who probably never had to go through the hardships I've had and reached a similar economic level with way less effort.
|
|
|
|
|
I do think the world is getting more divided, and unfortunately I believe it will be even more so with Trump as president. He is not a person to unite, not a moderate politician. So many things he's already done and is probably still planning to do in the future will alienate a lot of people in other countries.
It is not good politically, but it's also true that it's hard to reason when there is a fundamental disagreement between authoritarianism and democracy. Economy is actually the area in which some such divisions used to be ignored (see Chinese economic relations with the USA), but I am not sure how things will be from now on about that.
As for WW3, it is a possibility, and also not something good for the global economy. But I don't think we're there, not yet.
|
|
|
|
I am not really knowledgeable on this topic and it might be a little early to have this kind of discussion about it but I am just curious what you guys think about it. I mean, if BRICS starts gaining momentum and influence globally, how much do you guys think it will affect Bitcoin, price-wise and adoption-wise?
Trump advocated for Bitcoin, and he is really against BRICS. I believe that Trump's threats to BRICS regarding them choosing some other currency for international trade are likely to be effective, considering that not all BRICS members are equally anti-USA and ready to suffer for it. But choosing Bitcoin is an interesting question. Russia is open to it, China and India probably aren't. It's not impossible, but as Trump sort of set his claim to Bitcoin, they might be wary of adopting it because of not wanting to be seen as similar to him and the US policies. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
