Probably going back down a bit more or a steady movement. The sentiment is rather negative right now especially after it dropped down from that recovery from the initial bearish impression it gave that let the price reach almost below $30k. We're still gonna see a lot of struggling for the month, I reckon we would only really see a recovery by the last quarter of the year. We might see it go up as a recovery, but I don't think it's going to stay there that long, the market would still probably stay at the current range.

That was kinda dumb, gambling, in general, is literally this, not just crypto-gambling to be specific. Heck, this isn't even a discussion of crypto gambling vs gambling imo, this is simply you stating the advantage of NOT crypto gambling, but rather crypto itself. Well not that it's wrong, crypto gambling just takes the attributes of crypto and sets it in their system, so it technically is the same, just that it still feels odd how you compared crypto vs gambling itself, and not really brick and mortar casinos or something of the sort.

There's also the idea that well, even if crypto (Bitcoin) itself is private, casinos still hold the right to ask for KYC (most of them have this in their TOS), and most often than not, those cases are mostly when you are about to withdraw, so it doesn't really change much in that scenario.

Might be because the current system offered this way is much more comfortable in terms of experience given to the user. Yes, it's at the cost of KYC rules BUT you can't deny that with the order that those casinos give out, most of the experience users felt has been a lot more comfortable/better for the most part (emphasis on most). I reckon it wouldn't be that bad for a group/company to develop those types of casinos again, but I don't think it can be kept afloat since I don't think a lot of users would actually use it since the majority of the people would rather enjoy a comfortable (and a bit more secure than others) type of experience.

Kinda sad since most people get stopped at the "saving" part since the money they obtained is basically used to pay whatever bills, food, or debts that they have. Not to mention that even if they save, I don't think they'd invest (they'd probably much rather stash it in their bank accounts or something), a lot of people fear that risk of "investing" since it seems like they're just going to end up losing the entire savings they earned for god knows how long. Not that I can blame them, I was the same at first. Just that I guess I had more opportunities since I was opened up to the "investing" idea  part when I was in late high school. (took me a few years before I was able to invest itself though).

I mean how far along are you thinking of when investing? If it's more than a year or two then yea, this is a pretty good spot to enter in imo. Wanting to wait for a lower price may be a good idea, but that's just a loop you're gonna keep on entering, later on, might as well just do it now imo (especially if you're looking for the long term). If you were planning to day trade then I'm pretty sure it's always a buy since you're going to immediately sell anyway after getting a bit of profit, then rinse and repeat.

Isn't the first step to trading acknowledging that there'd be instances where you lose your money, albeit temporarily? At least that's how I set my mindset whenever I start a trade, it's just a matter of whether I accept that loss (which is unlikely) or that loss is simply a part of a movement of the market and that it would grow to be better. Might be because of the influence of me investing in the long term instead of day trading or short-term trading though, since I don't actively try to actually look at the movement of the market at every time possible.

Agree. I've tried testing them out and they just honestly aren't that good of an investment, especially in the long term. Most of them are just hyped up a f, you can get a good profit if you're able to time it right (and with a bit of luck).

Warren Buffet has always been against Crypto and I don't think that's going to change any time sooner. He's seen the market go up and down and as an investor, I'm pretty sure that would normally be enough to say that they made a mistake, but he didn't say so and instead solidified his position of going against Bitcoin. There's not even any point in trying to get him to accept Bitcoin, he has his own investing strategy, and investing in innovative projects might just simply be not one of them.

Bear market ig. I mean it goes back up in the past month wasn't really a sign of it entering a bullish season, it was just a recovery from the bearish run before it. I guess it couldn't hold that recovery and went back down once more, might be because of the general outlook right now on the market being negative. I wouldn't consider it that bad though, I mean we were in this same state a month ago, If we zoom out then it's just an up down movement so far. Maybe if we go down to $20k levels, then panic a bit.

I'm just going to judge this based on the cost of goods and services and compared to back then when I was a kid, it has increased but not to the point where it has heavily damaged OUR living standards. I can't say the same for other families though. Based on what I remember a decade or so ago, the increase in price could be scaled to around 30%? It might be higher on other services or products, but most of what is needed (at least for me) for everyday life increased by that much iirc. This is in PH btw.

I can't say that it's THAT good though since the minimum wage is still fairly low to properly support your family.

I'm rather amazed at how people find connections for the weirdest of things. He's an entrepreneur, he wouldn't have reached his current position if he couldn't use his brain to think about stuff,  and buying Twitter based on this kid certainly isn't one of them. I wouldn't even consider Musk having "impulsive" actions, pretty sure they all have some thinking behind them one way or another. Plus I don't think he gives a damn about what people think about him, so I don't think being "afraid" of jack is plausible.

Thing is, that's your opinion, and you certainly ain't the owner of the various casinos out there. Businesses don't look at things in the short term, having a lack of players in the early stage certainly isn't a problem for them since the plans they've made take such situations into account. Given enough time, most casinos would grow to a level enough to actually pay back the losses (and probably more) that they lost early on when the player count was low.

They would all require you, in the end, to submit KYC details afaik. They cover it up by saying that they'd only do KYC "if needed", but in most cases, if not all ,withdrawals (for big wins) would usually be those "if needed" scenarios. In the end, I'd highly suggest that you'd be prepared to submit KYC details whenever you register, whether or not it's immediately needed on registration.

That's for scam casinos imo. Legitimate ones might just really need to take some time before processing the documents you submitted. Maybe wait for a week before submitting a query about the current status, then if it lasts a month, you can probably safely say that the site is a scam.

Anything you'd want to boost popularity with would always use social media as a medium. It's basically a hub where people can easily interact and share their opinions, as well as spread them to basically everyone else that uses the internet. The major goal in using it anyway is to let the people know of the existence of the project you are endorsing, the rest of the information added is just flavor to increase the chances of you actually remembering it (or not). As long as the project sticks out to someone, I'm pretty sure most businesses would consider it a success.

Well the most basic method to judge someone is the amount of profit (in %) they can earn in general. Ofc it probably isn't all, but if you were looking for the simplest metric, then that would be it imo.

Yea just don't. DYOR, stop trying to think that others would simply give you their research and study of the market. Think about it, that's a profiting strategy, would you willingly share it? Maybe a small number would, but a majority would never.
Probably scam? I mean there might be legit ones, but they would be rather hard to find. I'd say just don't look for escrow in telegram.

But it's tedious, and honestly not worth the effort if you want to look at it as your main source of income. In all honesty, you'd probably be better off looking to learn something instead of trying this kind of activity. There might even be better ways to earn money through beer money activities. And you could probably learn some stuff there even in rare cases.

I don't think casinos would do that, they'd much rather ask for an official partnership with famous YouTubers, artists, or simply content creators instead of some random guy on the internet that wants to earn money. It's not really rude, it's just business.

I suppose? (Though I'm also a PH resident so I suppose they've already done it). Might be better to ask this as a personal opinion instead of a what-if for the government. Anyway, I'd suppose I'd do the same. Yes I understand the logic that it isn't really the activity's fault for them doing those stuff, Pretty sure any gambling activity would make them do the same, but you can't deny that it IS still the apparent reason at that moment. Though this is a band-aid solution really at most since it doesn't really attack the core of the problem

No, not really. I mean I get the logic, and it's exactly why I refuse to blame the activity. Just that it's a kind of delicate matter imo, since we're tackling here the mentality of players. And it's a LOT harder to educate people compared to outright just banning the source of the problem (even if there are multiple sources forr the problem).

Probably because as you said, if they were to give out a way to check the RTP, if it were to ever change the cause of some variance and shows unmatched results, it may just be argued that the casino is lying. Not to mention that for the average user, it's rather complicated that they wouldn't even bother trying it out in the first place. And considering how casinos are in the first place, businesses and they would, ofc, prioritize profits first, putting out that small feature (even if it's rather simple), they wouldn't really bother with it.

No one's hating on you trust me, it's just that we gotta let reality slap you in the face since you're kind of in the clouds with how you're thinking right now. Bonuses given when creating accounts or doing something are natural when it comes to most of this stuff, but they're really small and for withdrawals, you need to pretty much provide your identity. Up to you if you think giving out your identity is worth that few bucks. I'd suggest trying to earn money that you'd be capable of losing, then invest slowly into assets you think would grow in the long term (which is safer).

I mean THAT is the core of trading, it's basically the part that determines whether you're going to profit or not, ofc it's difficult. To help in identifying it, the two types of analysis (fundamental and technical) should be pretty helpful for you to decide on a path to take. Ofc it still involves you understanding the market and making your own predictions and suggestions based on your own current understanding, but all those are based on what news you actually receive or analyze anyway. You also can't deny that "gut feelings" have helped a lot of traders in the past, but that'd be a one or two off kind of thing imo.

^This. Horse racing is an industry that's been in place for SO long. Do you think its morality and ethics haven't been questioned in that period of time? It's probably been asked a lot really, and the government has probably done a LOT to actually address it imo. Ofc the core of this should always be to take care of horses as much as sports teams take care of their players. It's really just a matter of trying to improve the quality that horses are able to experience so that they can race to their fullest (naturally, that is).

As you said, that would raise questions about it being rigged. Horse racing is a battle of numbers after all, and I think virtual horse racing would simplify trying to identify those numbers (which would probably make it easier to predict winners).