I am not sure that Bitcoin will reach such price points, to be honest, but something like 300k is probably realistic. Who knows, maybe it can go up even further, I'm just not sure because that would mean that either the global economy grew enormously by that point or that Bitcoin gets a much bigger stake of the global economy than it currently has. I don't have a particular price point, and I treat Bitcoin basically as savings (aside from a small amount I keep for gambling and from occasional donations in Bitcoin): I try not to spend it if I don't have to, but I sell for fiat when I need to. I find it an okay strategy because it means I don't have high expectations, don't rely on Bitcoin growing over time, and don't worry much about the price.

I believe that policies that are aiming to lower environmental impact should be pursued because climate change will have devastating effects and mostly on communities that aren't at all to be blamed for it. The US is the largest consumer of beef in the world, and beef is heavily responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. It's also well-known that consumption of too much red meat carries serious health risks. So here you go, there's a thing where they could cut down the industry, reducing the environmental impact and health risks. The US is also extremely high in the number of cars per capita in the world (#2 if we exclude very small countries). Cars not only are bad for the environment but also take up a lot of space as well as force people to sit for an even longer time with little movement, which is also unhealthy. So here's another area where making regulations would be a good way to contribute to solving several issues. But no, they're [potentially] going after mining, which isn't even all bad for the environment because it depends on the energy sources and which doesn't have strong other adverse effects, not to mention it being a tiny part of things contributing to climate change.

I sometimes get surprised how much people care about opinions on Twitter. In some areas, such as leaks of new CPUs or GPUs, even opinions of people with small audiences and who make unsubstantiated claims are suddenly valued like expert opinions. With cryptos, it's a little different because a person does need a big audience, but having a big audience and promoting Bitcoin suddenly transforms a person into a Bitcoin expert to many, which isn't right.
I don't care who changes their opinion, removes an image or edits the bio. It doesn't mean anything for Bitcoin and its community, and the op is right that people shouldn't put so much faith and expectations into influencers.

I think the problem isn't with the intellectual capabilities as much as it is with emotional intelligence and basic morality. People indeed need to process more information on daily basis now than they needed in the past. That doesn't mean people are more critical thinkers than they used to be, though, but I hope they largely are, especially because the world has never been such an educated place as it is right now. That being said, I too used to believe in human progress up until very recently. It was not because the events that happened were particularly out of place but rather because when they happened elsewhere, I didn't pay enough attention and didn't fully realize it. What I'm talking about if the Russo-Ukrainian war. If a country can still invade another to grab territories, if they can torture PoWs and civilians, almost completely destroy towns and cities, and YET the government and the troops of this country can maintain strong support within their country despite plenty of available evidence... If the rest of the world can weigh gas prices and utility bills over what now several countries recognize as genocide... I am not sure humanity is making progress and that there's hope in that. If after thousands of years of development and tons of terrible devastating wars and other things like the Holocaust people didn't finally figure out that terrible things must be prevented and that many things are completely unacceptable, have we really make ANY reasonable progress to be proud of? Technologically, maybe, but without moral progress, the technological progress poses a threat to become a weapon of greater destruction.

I don't think financial crimes should normally be a huge offence (because no person is getting hurt from that), and not paying taxes shouldn't be a big enough crime either. What is going to happen to these people? How big of an offence is it in Bangladesh? In my country, when someone's arrested and it makes it to the news, the article from the law under which a person is prosecuted and what punishment that article entitles is usually provided. Is it a big fine? Probation? Community service? Perhaps even prison time?
If it's not just money laundering/tax evasion but something like a dating scam, though, it's another thing and I don't have much sympathy for those engaging in such stuff.

I hope it's just speculations and such a rushed decision as banning PoW won't be imposed in the US. It's unfair to focus or targeting such a small industry that isn't even all bad for the environment (because it can be done with clean energy), when there are things that are obviously very bad for environment and should be limited because they can't be done in totally eco-friendly ways. But also, I agree with others that even if mining is banned in the US, it will be only a temporary issue, after which miners will relocate and resume operations.
Also, since China banned mining for, allegedly, environmental reasons, why not wait and see if the ban on mining made China for environmentally friendly than it used to be before? Unfortunately, I can't find the data for 2022 and 2021, so it's a bit hard to assess for now, but it would be smart to wait and see if emissions are even reduced when mining is banned (I doubt they are).

I agree with the op that we shouldn't call the case of El Salvador a failure. The price is down, but they luckily didn't invest a big amount of the government's funds into it (in terms of percentage from the total), so it's not catastrophic. Also, I am sure the price will be up again. As for adoption of Bitcoin as money, I've also seen reports that Bitcoin isn't particularly popular in El Salvador, even though it's legal tender, and that many just used their wallets once, to get the initial $30 worth of BTC. There's still time, and things can change. As long as Bitcoin adoption doesn't lead to major adverse effects, there's no reason not to adopt it.

EUR 20,500
kryptonomous

EUR 1750
kryptonomous

I think I'm familiar with the concept of digital banks, and from what I know about them, while they are digital and cryptos are digital, digital banks aren't always allowing to use or store cryptos. So a digital bank and a crypto-friendly bank are different things. I opened a few links of the op and there were no mentions that these banks would allow sotring Bitcoin or other cryptos. So I'm a little confused what proves that these banks aren't just digital banks but are truly getting involved in cryptos.

The guy she was competing against for the post was criticised for exactly the same thing, and I don't think Johnson was particularly not out of touch with normal people either.
I hope that collective action of regulating energy prices that Europe intends to undertake against Russia will draw the prices down, normalize them. Of course, the UK isn't reliant on Russian energy sources, but the global market is affected by the pricing set by its actors and by what consumers are willing to pay (with consumers being countries, not people, of course).
Freezing the rates can be tricky for the future but can help people struggling with bills this winter. Maybe there can be a better short-term solution, but I don't know what it can be. And the long-term solution should be moving away from gas and oil anyway.

I won't argue with the fact that cryptos and blockchain created new, much needed jobs. It's exciting that there are things people can now do and get paid for which wouldn't have existed otherwise and were unimaginable 50 years ago. But the jobs aren't always privatized and decentralized, of course: in fact, they're usually the opposite. A person working as a community moderator would work for a specific and usually centralized platform, will probably have an employer and stuff like that. Some can be self-employed, but that's not specific to crypto jobs either.
Also, while these jobs op listed will find their people, it doesn't mean government jobs aren't relevant anymore. Public sphere will still exist, and so will authorities of all sorts. Crypto jobs can even be government jobs if it's a governmental wallet app, for example, or a governmental crypto exchange.
So it's not all as easily divided into centralized and decentralized.

I think success should be measured based on the goals a person had, and success can be very different for different people. For example, I watched a video some time ago about a boy from my developing country who has Down's syndrome. He was really into history and his family had to argue for him to be allowed to pass general entrance examination to the university (our version of SAT). He was allowed to take the test, he scored high enough to get a scholarship to a pretty good university (in my country, scholarships are purely based on the grades you get), and during uni he also became a guide in a local museum. To me, this is a huge success because a person had serious obstacles, definite goals, and succeeded in overcoming obstacles and reaching the goals.
For some spoiled healthy rich kid getting into uni and doing some internship at a museum wouldn't be anything, though, and wouldn't be much of an achievement. So it's not just about the actions, it's also about what it takes for a person to get there.
I also agree with the op that success shouldn't just be about money or fame: IMO if one wants to build a healthy strong relationship with someone else and does that, it's also a great success.
As for objective things, I think we should focus on things that are making the world better or at least aren't making it worse when we talk of people as successful.

There's  no proof that halving directly affects the price in any way. Some believe it leads to a bullish market but fail to explain why it doesn't often happen right away. Some probably believe the price goes down because the reward gets smaller. In any case, it seems to me that most of major Bitcoin price movement has nothing to do with halving and does not happen around halving. As for miners, yeah, they can be mining at a loss, like any business can get in a situation of operating at a loss. Some will continue, hoping it will all be worth it in the end, while others will leave mining.
Regarding the war, I think it's about the scope and character of the war and whether the Internet keeps being very accessible to many people, as well as electricity in general.

Firstly, the Netflix bit is indeed only about ads on cryptos and gambling, not on banning Bitcoin. Secondly, it seems that the first source is an article by the Sydney Morning Herald (I've never been on their website before this story), and it refers to "local sources" when making the claims about crypto and gambling ads being rejected, also along with political ads and ads of any products to children.
So we'll see how this actually goes, and if restrictions are so generic, it's okay that cryptos are a part of it. After all, crypto ads in general are not Bitcoin ads: they are ads of centralized services (wallets, exchanges) or shady projects like ICOs.
On the other note, I am happy for the op that Indonesia made a pro-crypto move.

1.  Hamilton
2.  Verstappen
3.  Leclerc

Game 1:  33'  3-0 Arsenal
Game 2:  33'  2-0 São Paulo FC
Game 3:  33'  1-1 draw

13) Khamzat Chimaev
12) Li Jingliang
11) Kevin Holland
10) Macy Chiasson
9) Ion Cutelaba
8 ) Hakeem Dawodu
7) Jailton Almeida
6) Jamie Pickett
5) Chris Barnett
4) Norma Dumont
3) Chad Anhelige
2) Elise Reed
1) Yohan Lainesse

Match 13 winner Total Strikes: 80

I don't think it will be a catastrophe if Bitcoin goes down to $10k, as I am sure it will recover from it. Hopefully, though, it won't come to it, as Bitcoin is already very low compared to the ATH point. Maybe US won't be as influential on the global Bitcoin market. Or maybe, before the supply's reduced, people will pour the money they have into Bitcoin, finally realizing that, unlike fiat, it doesn't suffer from inflation. Also, people in the US aren't as poor as to choose between basic needs and investments. Some are, of course, but it's also #1 economy in the world, and there are plenty of rich people who might be looking for investments that are less dependent on the global economy. Just recall the news of Covid stimulus checks being invested into Bitcoin, I bet many didn't see that coming and assumed that money would be spent directly on basic needs. It's a different thing, of course, and in fact the opposite of restrictive monetary policies, but I'm just saying that we shouldn't underestimate investing potential of people in the economy that's entering a recession.

Are there polls that confirm very rich people are indeed worried about Bitcoin and Blockchain rather than are curious or just ignorant about them? There are people who are in a conflict of interest, those who work for big traditional investment markets. So they can, of course, trash-talk about Bitcoin. But as for generic rich people, are they truly largely worried about Bitcoin? If you're very rich, you normally have the kind of wealth that won't be gone because it's in different assets, countries, property and other things. So unless it's an end-of-the-world situation, you'll be alright. Bitcoin doesn't do much to undermine traditional industries in practice. They still remain highly valued and powerful. There's enough for everyone, it's not really a competition IMO.