That's what I like about market competition: if Binance does it, competitors will need to make similar moves or offer something else that is no less attractive to their users if they don't want to lose customers. Binance is a good exchange company. Of course, many are unhappy with it because of its KYC policy and how tightly it follows international and local legislations (such as abiding by EU anti-Russian sanctions), but it's a reputable and convenient platform. With their level of popularity, they probably don't need trading fees for revenue anymore, so I'd a good move.

I think it's a pretty cool idea, I wish there were more places with such museums. From the photos, though, I could only see things but not explanations (information boards). Do they have those? It would be useful to be able to read what is in front of you, when it was actively used for mining, how efficient it was (how much one could mine with it over a certain period of time), what it was replaced by and stuff like that. I remember a time when Venezuela was frequently mentioned in talks about crypto adoption, but then El Salvador overshadowed it when it made Bitcoin a legal tender.

I'm not sure what to think of this. First, I don't like anything that's branded as VIP, elite etc. It's just this exclusivist posh attitude that's not for me. Then there's bitcoinblack they keep mentioning, and I'm unfamiliar with it. When I googled it, I found some sort of Bitcoin Black crypto and people on quora saying it's a scam. Also, from other news on the matter I see it's about a card for UAE. And there's another thing that bothers me: I see no major outlets writing about it, which to me is an indicator the news might be untrue or misleading.

I think it's great news. Not only it shows interest in Bitcoin mining, but it's also related to renewable energy, which is important to break the stereotype that Bitcoin mining is not environmentally friendly. It shows that Bitcoin mining is actually one of the industries that can promote the usage of renewable energy when a company has a lot of it and is figuring out what to do with it or, in this case, testing out the greed. However, I don't fully understand how Bitcoin mining can help, aside from testing, with instability that comes with renewable sources.

a) 18 b) 2:20
a) 16 b) 2:06

I am not sure how trustworthy such data is because I don't know how they estimate these numbers, what counts as active usage to them, how much might not be accounted for. Also, even looking at the chart, it's clear that it went pretty low before but then jumped back up, so there's no reason to believe that won't happen again. Moreover, if it's about active usage, it might be that many people just tend to hodl their coins during bad times instead of trading them. It doesn't mean they don't care about the market or abandon it, they just don't sell at low price, which is wise.

I don't see it as a problem because to me it's just a reference point. The value of dollar is commonly known because it's basically acting like the world's reserve currency. So, for instance, the value of local fiat in various countries, including mine, is often measured against USD because it's presumed to be stable enough for this purpose. Now, lately, the USD is not as stable as it used to be, which creates an issue. $100 in July of 2022 is not the same as $100 a year ago, not in terms of purchasing power. So when measuring Bitcoin in dollar, we forget to account for that. But given BTC's very high volatility and usage all over the world, we need some sort of estimate that would help understand what you can buy for 1 BTC today, what you could buy 2 years ago, and what you could buy a month ago. It would be very inconvenient, at this level of volatility, to rely solely on BTC and get used to extreme price changes over short periods of time.

11) Rafael dos Anjos
10) Caio Borralho
9) Said Nurmagomedov
8 ) Jared Vanderaa
7) Jamie Mullarkey
6) Cynthia Calvillo
5) Ricky Turcios
4) Cortney Casey
3) Tresean Gore
2) Kennedy Nzechukwu
1) Ronnie Lawrence
Total Strikes 107

a) 16 b) 2:01
a) 18 b) 2:25

Honestly, I've been waiting for a recession for a couple of years now, and maybe we'll just ease into it eventually with all that's going on (btw, war, not crisis, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine). In that case, I don't think Bitcoin will notice the difference. Or, maybe, it's already happening, and we're already seeing the negative impact on the price. In any case, I think that Bitcoin bear market is a matter of a few months, normally, while a global economic crisis can take much longer to recover from and no sudden rapid positive movement that can happen with Bitcoin. I'm judging here largely on how Bitcoin price reacted to the pandemic.

Some institutional players might pull their money out of the crypto industry, out of Bitcoin. In some countries, strict regulations may appear regarding certain activities like mining. But that doesn't mean Bitcoin is moving toward any sort of end. It's still growing if you zoom out and look at other bear market situations of the past. It's facing a temporary situation, which I have very little doubt will actually prevent Bitcoin from growing again. So there's no need to panic or be concerned, or rely on opinions of some hedge funds.

I think that physical Bitcoin is backward thinking. Humans have had physical money for many centuries, but the digital world and the level of interaction in it is so high that it's no longer enough to only use physical money. So Bitcoin is actually a step forward, as it's a coin that has no physical realm because it's not needed anymore. Sure, there are places and conditions in which there's no stable internet access, electricity or the level of digital literacy is too low, but these people won't be interested in physical Bitcoin probably either. I don't mind projects that suggest physical BTC as a thing of art, a collectible of something like that. But otherwise, it's a waste of resources and space.

If the question is about valuation (the value of Bitcoin, as in its price, real or 'fair'), then I don't think there's a direct impact. Maybe we'll get to see for ourselves if Ethereum ever makes good on its promise to switch from one to another. Proof of work is more trustworthy and less centralized, so it would be fair for Bitcoin (or Ethereum, for that matter) to cost more when it's PoW than in an even of switching to PoS. However, if we're talking about actual pricing, I think there won't be any direct impact from the switch, but there can be impact based on the media coverage and sentiments. If some companies bring in new investments because of thinking that a crypto is now environmentally friendly, it can be of short-term help to increase the price. If panic that PoS isn't trustworthy is overpowering, the price can temporarily decrease.

a) 10 b) 1:55
a) 11 b) 2:18

I agree that a more stable price is desirable in the long run. However, I have a couple of notes here. One is that fiat has an authority that can manage it, whereas Bitcoin is and will most likely remain under nobody's control. So how can we make the price more stable, or do you believe it will get there on its own? The second point is about introducing Bitcoin in stages. Again, something like a big company getting involved with Bitcoin happens, the media spread the news, people find out about Bitcoin and some get interested. It's not a process which is under control. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in practice Bitcoin is sort of being introduced at stages this way, but it does nothing to help stabilize the price.

I think these things just show how bad the legislation is, how favorable it is to those who are already very wealthy and powerful. The thing about the sell tax and avoiding payments by now selling should be fixed one way or another. If it were up to me, I'd introduce a specific law for everyone with wealth above some very high threshold, requiring transfering of assets for the good of the state if one is not selling the assets and thus not paying the sell tax. Or tax borrowing, and tax it hard.
More importantly, we need to change the culture. People who are wealthy but barely contributing (proportionately to their wealth) to their communities or to other communities which are in great suffering should be shamed, condemned. It should be considered a matter of respect to donate generously and do things like fund hospitals, universities, establish scholarship funds, help the elderly etc.
As for the income gap, it exists and can be very high, but let's not forget that it's minuscule compared to the wealth gap,

Game 1:  12' SPFC 2-1

I've been numerous speculations on how BTC price can't fall below a certain level because then mining wouldn't be profitable, and the op's question reminds me of that. The thing is, that's life, and yeah, something can become unprofitable, people can lose money, and some will go out of business while others would continue operating despite losing money, hoping it would all be worth it in the end. Mining gold requires resources, and mining Bitcoin requires them as well. But we don't value gold based on how hard it is to mine it, and the same is true for Bitcoin. The difference is that with gold a mining deposit can be suddenly discovered and an influx of gold can increase unexpectedly, while mining of Bitcoin is happening at a strict rate, and we also know the total supply whereas we can't know gold's total supply.

I was worried about El Salvador when the price fell so drastically, as a state budget can't afford such a high volatility, especially for such a poor country as El Salvador. But then I learned that they actually only held a very small percentage of the budget in BTC (I can't find the article now, but it was something between 0.5% and 2%). So yeah, they played it safe, and I'm happy they can now buy more at a great price. These are baby steps when talking about a country's budget (meaning that even when this $1.5 million becomes, say, $5 million, it won't fix anything major in the economy), but they're happening.

I don't know if the estimates of gold for this Uganda ore are correct and how they can compare to what's known of gold these days, but the Reuters article suggests that the supply in there might exceed the total amount of gold currently in circulation. If that's true and it can be extracted in such numbers, gold could indeed devaluate extremely. And yes, with Bitcoin, it would never become a problem. Also, it's no secret that gold mining has big environmental impact, harms the communities and nature, contaminates water supplies. Bitcoin mining, on the other hand, doesn't have such a direct negative impact on communities and can be done in eco-friendly ways.