Well, when the economy is overheating and prices are rising, the central bank raises the interest rate. The idea is that loans become more expensive, people and businesses spend less, and inflation goes down. The ECB is for Eurozone, and this move by them means they believe that EUR is stable enough for that and the economy could use more activity.
The Fed is in the US, and with Trump's sudden and rapid policy changes, my guess is that they're staying on a safe side for now, not to risk higher inflation.

It is important to understand that external debt can be an indicator of high trust in a country. After all, one should be pretty confident about getting the money back to be open to lending it (or be okay with not getting it back for some reason). The US, as the issuer of the world’s dominant reserve currency, can allow itself to play with fire and have a huge debt without immediate risks. That being said, what Trump is doing to the US economy seems chaotic and more driven by his political ambitions and the incompetence of his team rather than a well-thought plan which will eventually work out. Kind of like shock therapy in the economy worked in the past.

BRICS is still being busy, but as it encompasses countries with such different agendas and cultures, they struggle to reach agreements on economic matters, while maintaining a careful 'diplomatic' political stance (although I wouldn't call it neutral, as Russia is one of the major members).
One should never underestimate the enemies, so completely disregarding BRICS would be a mistake. The block is growing, and I am concerned that disliking both economical and political policies might be just enough for them to build a common vision.

I guess there is some truth to it. However, what matters to me is economic influence and global reserve currency share.
The USA is still world's biggest economy. Moreover, dollar makes up about 58% of global reserves.
China is the world's second economy, so also very influential.  But the yuan's share of global reserves is a little over 2%, so while the currency is strong, it's incomparably weaker.
I believe that these factors are more important than the currency's purchasing power/exchange rate to the USD.

Unfortunately, like many others, I can't access the website to see what's there. Some kind of tracking would be useful, but I gotta say I wouldn't fully trust AI for that, as it can make things up to please the customer (depends on a particular AI, but still).
As for trade wars being stupid, I have a different perspective. Yes, they aren't nice, and they hurt people economically. But a trade war is much better than nuclear arms race of the Cold War, or active large-scale wars with bombs, artillery and many daily deaths, like the one my country is currently experiencing.
I think if the world moved away from real wars and from raising military potential to cultural and economic wars, that would be progress for humanity.

In my personal experience, getting to learn about Bitcoin and getting involved with it actually helped me figure out how to assess and spend income in general. Setting up a budget is good for investing, and if one isn't particularly financial educated, taking Bitcoin seriously can help with that.

By setting a budget, you not only control your spending, but you also know exactly how much you can invest in Bitcoin without risking your essential needs. You can also plan for other expenses, savings, etc.

Interesting idea, but my experience is a bit different. People usually get interested in crypto not because someone else is successful, but when there is a new hype or price growth in the news. When the market goes down, their interest disappears. I think the problem isn’t about someone not inspiring them, but that most people aren’t ready to learn, take risks, and be patient. Crypto is not for everyone, but that's alright.

1. Chennai Super Kings
2. Over
3. Delhi Capitals
4. Under
5. Royal Challengers Bengaluru
6. Over
7. Kolkata Knight Riders
8. Under
9. Mumbai Indians
10. Over
11. Gujarat Titans
12. Under

The appointment of Paul Atkins as the new SEC Chair looks like good news for the crypto market, especially after Gary Gensler’s tough rules. Atkins is pro-Bitcoin, which sounds nice. The US economy could use a business-friendly SEC chair right now. But as for Bitcoin, I agree with those pointing out that Bitcoin has been doing just fine, with or without the SEC's approvals. So it doesn't hurt to have Atkins there, but it's not particularly important either. Bitcoin is stronger than institutions.

I remember the times when Bitcoin was only talked about on forums and there were occasional but negative mentions of it on the news. Nowadays, it’s a topic for central banks, big investment funds, and even global politics. For me, Bitcoin's main role is the store of value, yes. And the symbolic sense of having a choice not to go for a currency issued and controlled by any authority.
Honestly, I don't think it will evolve into a mainstream payment network, not while fiat and the traditional banking systems are acceptable enough for most users.
As for Bitcoin becoming a political asset, I really don't want it to be like this, as authoritarian countries supporting Bitcoin would then affect its reputation even more than these days.

1. Cory Sandhagen 
2. Reinier de Ridder 
3. Santiago Ponzinibbio 
4. Montel Jackson 
5. Cameron Smotherman 
6. Jeremy Stephens 
7. Yana Santos 
8. Miesha Tate
9. Marina Rodriguez 
10. Gaston Bolaños 
11. Don’Tale Mayes
12. Juliana Miller

NOT go the Full Distance: 8

33 kryptqnick

Bitcoin continues to grow in popularity as a reliable asset for long-term investors. However, I am not sure that long-term investors are necessarily institutional investors. It could be Bitcoin enthusiasts who've gained BTC in the past and/or Bitcoin miners, small entrepreneurs.
As for the chart, there are still more short-term holders, even though the gap is getting smaller.

I do agree that building wealth isn’t just about working more — it’s about making your money work for you. That being said, a paycheck is something more stable and involving way less risk. What you own can be wealth, but it can get destroyed or lose value. Even worth, it might lose liquidity, being something expensive nobody wants at a particular point in time.
As for the zero-sum game, it's more of a zero-sum mindset, whereas the current economy allows win-win situations and shifting toward positive-sum games.

Large companies are increasingly becoming convinced about Bitcoin's future.
The bright side it that these investments could boost Bitcoin's adoption and drive its value up. But then there's the other side, as more and more Bitcoin gets concentrated in the hands of big corporations, becoming less decentralized in a way.
They're doing it because they care about profit, and while it raises Bitcoin in the eyes of traditional investors, let's not forget that people who are getting into BTC merely for profit are not true Bitcoiners. They don't care about the freedom, decentralization, and innovation BTC brings to the world of Finance. They care how much money they can milk it for, so to speak.

Game 1:  28, 23'
Game 2:  28, 27'

1. Punjab Kings
2. Over
3. Mumbai Indians
4. Under
5. Royal Challengers Bengaluru
6. Over
7. Gujarat Titans
8. Under
9. Kolkata Knight Riders
10. Over
11. Chennai Super Kings
12. Over

They own a significant amount of BTC. But the goal of 21,000 BTC by 2026 is much more ambitious. It's nearly 7 times more than their current holding, and Bitcoin is quite expensive to acquire in such amounts. Metaplanet's market capitalization is $170 billion, though, which means they can afford it.
By the way, how are 3,200 BTC worth $1.23 billion? The maths doesn't add up.

Well, to me, Adam Back is not a random guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. Perhaps if there is serious progress in quantum computing, everyone would need to more their assets. To be honest, though, I assumed that if we ever get there, there would be some kind of soft fork rather than individual decisions to switch.
Also, 'maybe 20 years' is very broad and can mean 'never'. People were supposed to go to Mars, grow human clones and many other things in similar timeframes. An answer like that means we're very far from this matter being a serious threat.

Risk-taking is important on the path to success. However, not all risks are the same, and not every risk is worth taking. Assessing the risk, your odds of success, is something worth doing.
Moreover, if you are already well-off, the risk you're taking it smaller than if you don't have financial stability. So it's easier to get richer if you come from a rich family or are already rich yourself, and it's harder and much riskier for others.