I don't think everyone educated has a responsibility to educate others. Sometimes people know things but are bad at sharing their knowledge with others. Sometimes people just want to chill and don't want to learn about some things. Also, the educator often becomes in an elevated position from those being educated, which can create discomfort and tensions. I think people should share knowledge when there's an opportunity for it, and also when those being taught show at least neutrality if not interest to the topic. I've worked as a school teacher for a couple of years, and I think I introduced cryptos briefly to most classes where I taught because it was something I saw an opportunity to mention and because kids actually were kind of familiar with it, at least vaguely. Of course, it wasn't about investing in cryptos, and it was a small thing that most would probably forget but some might be keen on exploring further.

Canada has a smaller population than I anticipated for a country of its size, but it's still around 38 million people, so a quarter would be around 13 million people. Realistically, people normally invest something more than $10, and even if each of these 13 million invests $100 on average, that's more than a billion dollars worth of investments rights there. Maybe this won't happen, but openness of 30% of people is still something, and those who do invest would probably go in with more than $100.
It's cool that this sort of research is being conducted, I think even posing people in front of a question like that makes them consider it as an option, so it's a bit of a crypto promotion of its own.

Many coins have a 'coin' as a part of the name, which would be weird for a person. Also, regardless of the coin, it seems inappropriate to me to name a child after a currency, any currency. Associating a child with money like that just doesn't sit with me well. But if a crypto has a name that sounds well, it can coincidentally become a child's name, of course, and a fact that there's a coin shouldn't stop parents from choosing the word they like.
I am surprised that 4 people voted 'yes' to the poll so far. I thought nobody would want to name children after currencies.

There are too many altcoins, it's a big market out there. With tha majority of them, a person can lose a lot of money. Even some that used to be in the top eventually moved down, some crashed significantly. Bitcoin is the most likely coin to recover, to grow. You're right that realistic returns with Bitcoin in the next couple of years are up to 10x and that probably some altcoins will go beyond that. But those are pretty good returns, and it's at a much lower risk than with altcoins. Plus, it's much less time-consuming because you focus on one coin and you already know which one.

I don't think halving's got much to do with it, or that any real major event is needed for a bull market to start. What IMO matters more is media coverage. If something even small is widely covered in a way that triggers FOMO, people are likely to start buying more of BTC, get excited, increase the demand, ensure the growth of the price. It can be a country introducing favourable crypto regulations, some financial expert saying something positive about Bitcoin, some company starting to accept Bitcoin as payment. Sometimes things like that go without notice, but other times they grab attention and trigger something. I think the same, pretty much, goes for downward trends.

I think Bitcoin software is strong enough to not worry about a critical failure, unless external circumstances suddenly change (a leap in quantum computing), but I doubt that will happen. Also, I think we can already see a large transaction volume, and I see no reason for it suddenly stopping to be the case by 2029. I am not worried about Bitcoin. I think it'll only get bigger, more adopted, the price will also continue growing, and that it's unlikely that something will make it worthless unless something that ruins human civilization happens, but in that case Bitcoin will be the last thing to worry about.

When I was a kid, I remember how often I heard this phrase that business can't be done fairly in my country: everyone had to bribe someone, has to manipulate numbers, abuse position from time to time etc. I think it certainly was true in those times of my childhood and earlier, and I'm not sure if it's true today. But since those times of being a kid I decided that I don't want to start my own business if it requires bribing people and breaking other laws. I think other things strongly depend on the kind of career a person wants to have and the country and institution where it happens. I do have some principles and things which I find acceptable and those which I find unacceptable. But a career per se has never been a huge goal in my life, to be honest, so maybe that's why I avoided major dilemmas so far.

I'm happy that there's this sort of intellectual content about Bitcoin and the context of different political and economic approaches. I was hoping an article would have some highlights from the video interview, though, for those who, like me, prefer to read than to listen. Also, it's very helpful for big videos to have timestamps on the main matters discussed, so that if a person doesn't feel like spending 2 hours 40 minutes on the whole thing, they can still get a general idea of what the interview was about and watch the fragments which are of most interest to them. I'd, for example, listen to arguments on why he views Bitcoin community as a cult, but I'm not interested enough to spend hours on it.

28% is a hefty tax, but the tax-free holding for a year or more is surprisingly great to balance it out. It's as if the policy is built to encourage long-term holding, actually. This is currently just a proposal, right? So it might not pass and might not become a part of the legislation. I also feel like perhaps this long-term zero-tax rule can come to getting abused (someone buys Bitcoin with money that wasn't taxed and just waits for a year to not have to ever pay taxes on it), I hope they thought it through.

Russia is an influential country with sizable influence and well as minorities in several European countries. So yeah, they can gather pro-Russian (anti-NATO) protests. I believe that what's important for democracies is to assess whether the protests reflect the opinion of the majority of the population (as they often don't and actually reflect the opinion of a loud minority). It's not hard to estimate that with sociological polls. Then, if the majority is indeed against remaining in NATO, I think there should be a bit of research on why (main reasons) and whether people understand the potential consequences of leaving. After that, of course, it's important to adhere to the will of the majority and withdraw if that's what they desire, perhaps via national referendum, given that the decision is big. As of 2021, the majority in all NATO states were in favour of remaining there, but in some countries there was also a significant opposition, so perhaps in a few countries the majority might oppose remaining in NATO now.

The switch to renewable energy is very important and a pretty urgent matter. Of course, it costs a lot of money to perform the switch, but the benefits of doing so are very clear. It'll pay off in the end and, more importantly, there will be immense economic losses from NOT doing it as well.
I am a bit surprised, though, that the researchers didn't look at atomic energy. Nuclear waste is a challenge, but electricity from nuclear power stations is much cleaner than traditional, and I'm sure that could save at least some of those estimated trillions needed for the switch. It's also much more stable than wind or solar energy because it's not weather-dependent and also not climate-dependent.

Bitcoin is currently worth $20k, so yeah, it sets a steep limit on who can afford it because the majority don't have that kind of money. But it's also possible to try mining (although that would also require significant finances to even start) or earning BTC. Bitcoin is a human creation, and humanity isn't perfect. It is susceptible to other issues that we have in our civilization, such as theft, scams, regulations and/or taxes, panic selling, rich people having way more opportunities than others, gender inequality due to structural obstacles and social stereotypes (but that depends heavily on a country as well), etc. It can't solve other global challenges, it can't beat the economic, social and ethical principles of our society.

If we're talking about altcoins, then yeah, influencers can have strong impact if not decisive impact behind some bull runs. Not just any influencers, of course, but those with a very big audience and lots of money. But with Bitcoin, I think there's the influence of the media, of some comments by big names, and of project laws/regulations. The influence isn't usually huge, though, and I think that lately even very powerful people or major Bitcoin regulation discussions barely triggered price changes. Bitcoin is still volatile and people can engage in panic selling or buy out of FOMO. But billionaires don't get a much bigger say in this than others.

12. Viviane Araujo Gomes
11. Cub Swanson
10. Askar Askarov
9. Jordan Wright
8. AJ Cunningham
7. Alonzo Menifield
6. Leomana Martinez
5. Jacob Malkoun
4. Victor Henry
3. Pierangela Rodriguez
2. Tatsuro Taira
1. Pete Rodriguez

Match 12 winner Total Strikes: 101

It still amazes me how much of an autonomy a state in the USA seem to have. The legislation is them can be very different, and something outlawed in some can be legal in others. Of course, paying more in Bitcoin than in fiat doesn't sound good. It comes from basically needing to pay a tax... on paying a tax, right? A person pays taxes in Bitcoin, and then because it was in Bitcoin and if (which is very likely) the price changed over time since purchase till payment, you then pay another tax, for the gains you've made. Is it like that in all states (in the US) that allow paying taxes in BTC?

1. WAS
2. CHI
3. WAS
4. Yes
5. Under
6. 2nd
7. Odd
8. Odd
9. CHI
10. WAS

Final Score prediction 19-17

1.  Wilder
2.  Over 4.5 Rounds
3.  Round 5

I also noticed immediately what was pointed out in the thread: the conversation is from 1.5 years ago. Elon Musk doesn't have as much power as he used to have over the crypto market, and the majority of his power was over Dogecoin and similar, not over Bitcoin. Thanks to his influence and billions at disposal, he did have impact when Tesla invested in Bitcoin and then when Musk announced that Tesla will stop accepting Bitcoin as payments (followed by eventuall sales of the coins themselves). But the impact was, like, 15-20%, I believe, and without a big long-term effect.
I do believe Bitcoin will reach $100k in the foreseeable future (within a year or two from now), but it, thankfully, has nothing to do with Musk.

Many people think that it's good is Musk buys Twitter. To be honest, I am surprised. That would create a monopoly on decision-making by a person whose thoughts and opinions change quite often, and who also regularly manages to say something that is insensitive and offends many people. Musk claims he supports freedom of speech, but, honestly, I am not sure that I believe that he won't just ban those who write what he doesn't like (Rogozin, without whom the platform is probably better off, but also ElonJet whom Musk sees as a security risk but couldn't make shut up yet, to name just a few). I hope he won't be able to buy Twitter in the end.

It's important that these sort of narratives that try to explain the world in a handful of stages or something like this are not scientific because it's just choosing the events that fit into the picture while ignoring other events. While there are periods of prosperity of global economy and times when it faces big difficulties, political events and things like 'political restructuring', 'new world order' are quite abstract, less measurable and a matter of debate. Politics doesn't perfectly align with economics, and by highlighting different events people can create different narratives.
Also Principle 3 about nation's greatest war being with itself - well tell that to countries which are being torn by wars waged upon them by a foreign enemy. Ukraine's greatest war is now with Russia, not internal and not about policies related to economic prosperity at all. As for Principle 4 - it's super easy to say 'earn more than you spend' when you're a billionaire, and it's way harder said than done for the majority of people.