I am not surprised by the support of regulations. It seems to me that it's always been the minority who deeply care about privacy, who disagree with the level of intervention into privacy that the state often has, who have something against providing an ID for some operations etc. But also, regulations aren't always about strict KYC; they can also be about a reasonable taxation system and about an ability to ensure that what you're doing is legal, which in turn means that you won't be persecuted but also that you'll be protected against the violations of others.
I think more regulations are pretty much inevitable, so we should focus on making those regulations reasonable.

I like the list, and I particularly like the reasons for dumps which are outlined there because, while linking to particular events, there's also an understanding that what matters isn't only the event but also the reaction of people to it. Moreover, I think we should remind ourselves about the dumps and how much value was lost in them, so that we can also remember how nicely Bitcoin recovered and exceeded its previous heights after what seemed like a huge defeat. It's an inspiring story. Maybe once there will the final dump, but IMO there must be a very good reason for it. Regulations, speculations, exchange exit scams aren't good enough for that.

While Rishi Sunak is indeed the new Prime Minister and a PM is pretty much the highest (in practice) post in the UK, I am not sure how much the regulations would be of use to cryptos like Bitcoin. Investopedia article, for example, is about stable coins and about a call to create a CBDC. The Yahoo article also mentions PM's desire to create a "Britcoin", and the stuff about Bitcoin and Ethereum seems to be purely based on speculations.
What I do know is that he came to power because of how badly the UK needs to have its economy fixed and brace for the recession. So he should be inclined to do whatever he can to boost the economy, and perhaps creating a favourable crypto climate is among the ways to do that.

I wonder if the op lost money from selling at $18k. Since the price was below or around $10k for most of 2020, I'm guessing that it wasn't actually a loss, but instead was at a small profit. In that case, why not buy just now, especially if the op believes it's the start of the bull market? The price is still more than 3x below the previous ATH, and when the market recovers, it sets a new ATH point.
I think the price might still fall lower for Bitcoin, and that this small increase might be a very temporary thing. But $20k isn't a bad buying point, IMO. I agree that selling at $18k was a bit premature, but it wasn't anything that can't be fixed.

1. BAL
2. TB
3. BAL
4. Yes
5. Over
6. 4th
7. Odd
8. Odd
9. BAL
10. TB

Final Score prediction 25-21

1.  Astros
2.  6 games
3.  8 runs

10. Calvin Kattar
9. Tim Means
8. Waldo Cortes-Acosta
7. Josh Fremd
6. Dustin Jacoby
5. Phil Hawes
4. Marcos Rogerio de Lima
3. Junyong Park
2. Chase Hooper
1. Carlos Mota

Match 10 winner Total Strikes: 72

1.  Paul
2.  Under 6.5 Rounds
3.  Round 4

Charts are easy to manipulate by choosing the time frame, picking the scale and adding quite a big margin of error. Even within the rainbow, there is plenty of room for ups and downs, and yet not everything fits neatly in. You can also look at more conventional price charts (such as here on Coingecko)to see that there's no objective rainbow there. As Lucius quoted, it's not even meant to be taken seriously. But IMO it's a good lesson on how charts seem objective and impartial but aren't.

I agree with what the op mentions in the personal experience part, but I think that some earlier things like about crypto being 'the sure way to build a successful business' are significantly overstated. A person can build a crypto-related business of many kinds, and it's also possible to implement some usage of cryptos for a business that isn't centered around cryptos. However, it can lead to losses, it can fail, just like other businesses. Also, if there's a good business idea but there doesn't seem to be a place for cryptos there, maybe it's okay and there shouldn't be.

The idea of decentralization is a very strong one, but its origins are in nature (mycelium, for example) and in 20th century philosophy (the concept of rhizome). The idea that money can be somehow decentralized was also conceptualized theoretically in the previous century, and something resembling a cryptocurrency was created well before Bitcoin in 1995 by David Chaum.
As pretty much always with big revolutionary ideas, they aren't as revolutionary if you research them. If Bitcoin weren't created, I am pretty confident that someone else would have come up with something similar, since the background for it was already there.
Bitcoin might be the next big thing after the Internet (and smartphones, don't forget how fast and widespread those became), but I wouldn't say that it's already clear that it is. As least for me, it's very unclear whether Bitcoin will even be used even by one billion of people, let alone several billion. And 'big thing', at least for me, presupposes that level of adoption.

I checked one of the unis listed by the op (Toronto), and I found one course on Bitcoin and crypto investing, as well as some crypto-related events. But is there a program there or in any of the universities the op listed that it specifically dedicated to cryptos, Blockchain or Bitcoin? Can you major in it or get a degree in it? If not, then I wouldn't call crypto education a priority of these institutions, as a course (or even several courses) is a very small thing if we consider how many courses there are per program, how many faculties there are etc. But there are bits of crypto education that are becoming available at the level of higher education in various countries around the world, I'd agree with that.

The percentage rate is pretty high if it's truly representative of the population. I couldn't fully understand whether the survey was only among employees of one specific company or not, but it seemed this way, and in that case, it's likely not representative. Then again, PawGo says the survey was of a thousand people with a 3% margin of error, which does sound like a representative poll.
Also, the article says those who are interested in being paid in cryptos would invest long-term or just use as savings (at least from how I understood google translated version of it). That's not a typical usage of a salary, IMO, as people usually work because they need money for their expenses, not investments. Or perhaps the question was (or was interpreted in such a way) about getting a part of the salary in cryptos, then it would make more sense why people see it as something to save or invest.

Different countries face different central challenges and come from different traditions of economic policy-making. For example, while corruption is a global issue, the level of it and how big of a problem it is varies a lot from one country to another. In some medical challenges are crucial, in others there is a big hunger issue, and in some there's a big risk of a military coup which is almost nonexistent in many other countries. So how corrupt the government is and how much is affects society can vary a lot. Also, if history of economy has shown anything, it's that there's no universal solutions. Both governmental planning and free market can sometimes be saviors and other times be very harmful. So handling challenges depends on what's already in place, since it's impossible to design a viable solution while being withdrawn from the actual situation. I will lead to big unforeseen consequences even if it sounded very good on paper.

Is Metaverse still a thing? The question sort of presupposed that it used to be. A question I'd ask is, Was Metaverse ever a thing?
It's not like it was something many were highly involved in, and then it died off. It wasn't really properly born yet, and maybe it never will be. So far, I don't think it has big chances of success. Maybe in the far future, in a different world. For now, we have plenty of connections between people via other means, and I don't see Metaverse as an answer. But I guess people couldn't imagine how big Facebook would become either. Maybe Zuckerberg can do it again.

After the previous global economic crisis, I sort of came to think that recessions will happen again, and that they are almost bound to happen once in a decade, more or less. I thought it was possible to postpone it and some events could bring it upon humanity sooner, but that it's just how the current global economy functions. Am I wrong about this? If not, then why are people acting like the recession is outrageous or that it's due to the war? There was also Covid, and that was bound to have a negative effect. Even prior to Covid, there were speculations that the recession should hit around 2020. It's 2022, and it's finally here. It's bad and probably just getting started, and yeah, it'll take a few years to get out of it, but I don't see it per se as surprising.

Cryptocurrency trading, IMO, has something skill-based in it, and so does choosing a project for a long-term investment. There's an element of luck, probably a significant one. We don't know the future, some events are not predictable, and some things just don't happen as they were rationally supposed to happen. But it's still not the same as using a generator of random outcomes or something like that. Also, gambling is not all pure chance, as poker is a prominent skill-based game that is often a part of gambling, for example. So the relations are not so clear-cut between the two and what is based on chance or skills.

I agree with the op that the attention to environmental impact of Bitcoin mining is way too high and considerations of banning it are way too common, while many industries are basically being ignored or not investigated enough. At the same time, I wouldn't say that calls to ban Bitcoin are even made based upon thorough investigations; instead they seem to largely rely on speculations, assumptions, lack of context. I think mining in the US won't become banned at the federal level, but perhaps some states would do that. As for the EU, I think they currently also have bigger issues, so I don't find a full mining ban likely. As for more regulations, making mining harder - unfortunately, I do think it's likely in Western countries, but it will be an issue only to miners who are currently in those countries, not to the network itself. Incentivizing clean mining is possible, but perhaps more likely as a part of incentivizing all or many of those who are currently on fossil fuels, not miners specifically. Finally, I think Bitcoin is already not the top priority but just one recurring topic that gets some attention from governments, and it's likely to linger on like that in the future, but without Bitcon being fully left alone.

Tesla's market capitalization is at $657.72 billion, and Apple + Saudi Aramco is $4.451 trillion (I've used the data from here). So Tesla is currently worth just shy of 15% of the top-2 combined. Quite an ambitious statement from Musk, then, which isn't surprising but isn't particularly realistic either.
Musk did some good, but also some bad with his talks and actions for the crypto market. I hope more major companies will join in, so that we can be hopeful about someone other than this guy.

Has any country outlawed non-custodial wallets? Perhaps some did, and in a few Bitcoin is banned altogether, but these aren't standard practices. I am okay with the lack of regulations, but I also think that for businesses to thrive and for better adoption, regulation is often important. So IMO, it's better to fight for reasonable regulations than for no regulation at all. The state does want to oversee many things, but the level of control and areas in which it prevails depends on a country. There are also some positive things that come out of regulations, such as actually fighting terrorism, limiting usage of funds that can be used for very malicious acts like firing missiles upon a foreign country, as well as encouraging businesses to not be afraid to adopt Bitcoin themselves, as they can be sure it's fully legal.