I, to be honest, thought that 5% inflation rate was considered pretty good, so is 2% even a desirable target? Maybe it won't get there, but if it gets below 5%, isn't it alright? I mean, not in general, because money devaluating is basically a hidden tax, but in terms of how fiat works and how it's argued that some inflation is good to motivate people to spend money instead of hodling. And also, I think the focus should not be on inflation and decreasing rate of economic growth, but things like redistribution of goods, better social policies etc.

I've lived in a country with high inflation rate, and I guess it made me pretty much insensitive to changes like this. I've been living in the UK since February, and if the prices got higher within this period of time, I didn't notice. They're very high, but that's because I compare them to a third-world country where I'm from. The 9% inflation, though, doesn't mean that the prices for goods went up by 9%. And you can see from this article that it's actually more like 4%, which, honestly, isn't easy to notice. If your average shop bill was 40 GBP, it would now be 42. Would you notice that?

12) Arman Tsarukyan         
11) Shavkat Rakhmonov           
10) Josh Parisian         
9) Thiago Moisés         
8 ) Umar Nurmagomedov           
7) Chris Curtis
6) Carlos Ulberg             
5) T.J. Brown           
4) Raulian Paiva         
3) JP Buys         
2) Mario Bautista           
1) Vanessa Demopoulos

Total Strikes 103

Game 1:  11' Palmeiras 2-1

While I agree that innovation is important, and skeptics are often wrong, I wouldn't say history is always on the side of innovation. At least, it doesn't apply to all innovations. Sometimes a thing can be relatively new and interesting but get very soon replaced by something else (like pagers did). Sometimes it's just not the right time, and something fails even though at some point something very similar becomes a hit (Virtual Boy).
I do think that Bitcoin arrived on time, and it's not one of those things that will soon (like, within a decade) be replaced by something else, but it's understandable that some might disagree and believe it's one of those innovations that can fail for some reason, and for instance, actually be like a part of dotcom bubble, and that eventually way better cryptos will emerge and become a hit.

EUR 21,000
kryptonomous

While I agree we can't know how low Bitcoin is going to fall, I think the best we can do is turn to history of highs and lows to see if $1k is likely to ever happen. At the end of 2013, the high was $1130, and the lowest point was $172 in January 2015. Next time the highest point was almost $20k in December 2017, and the lowest was $3300 one year later. Then the new highest was $62k in April 2021, and then $67700 in November same year, and the lowest point, it seems, hasn't been reached yet. Based on how the lows are also growing, I think that $10k bottom is, unfortunately, quite real, and maybe even $8k. But not $1k.

If it's just 0.5%, they're being very careful with it, and I'm very glad about it. Clearly, going all-in or even very significantly in with Bitcoin as a country or as a business is too early to do when Bitcoin can still lose so much value over a small period of time.
It does seem to be a great time to buy more, so I hope they will and hodl till the ATH is reached, at least. As for the IMF, I'm not surprised it doesn't like Bitcoin and how El Salvador is using it, but they really should look into Bitcoin instead of being all "concerned" about it.

Ah, you are just waiting for the crash times to come to say something anti-Bitcoin, right? But did you consider, even from a purely pragmatic economic perspective, how much money you could've made if instead of being very anti-Bitcoin you just bought in the last bear market and sold around ATH?
IMO, Bitcoin crashed in March 2020 NOT due to Fed overprinting. It crashed precisely when the pandemic was officially announced, so the crash can be attributed more to panic selling and FUD than anything else. The printing would come much later, and at that time Bitcoin was doing quite well.
I am not sure why Bitcoin fell now or if there even is a good reason, but there's no reason to believe that it won't recover this time. But I guess some people never learn. I guess we'll see you next time, when Bitcoin falls down to the miserable $80k and is once again worthless, purely speculative and all that.

A) Colorado
B) Over
C) Yes   
D) Colorado
E) Tampa Bay 
F) Colorado   
G) Tampa Bay     
H) 10'

Frankly, I don't think "deserve" is applicable to investments. The price is very nice, and I think those you the op might refer to as not deserving to buy at such a good price won't buy anyway because they're skeptics and despite multiple times when Bitcoin recovered from situations that were no better than this one, they're probably thinking that this is the end, and that it will never go up. I, however, think the current situation is no different from any previous major fall. I did think the new low would be higher than it already is, and who knows where the bottom will be this time, but Bitcoin can absolutely go to $100k-$200k, and once again many will regret not believing in it.

I don't like and don't use Apple, but I think decisions like this should be based on the desires of users. Do the majority of users support the switch to biometrics?
I personally tend to use passwords and find it a bit unsettling when my own body is used to open things, apps and stuff like that. Also, from fingerprint lock on the phone, I know that it often doesn't read well, and it can be annoying when you need access to something but the fingerprint is read incorrectly many times. Not to mention that yes, there's plenty of hardware that doesn't have fingerprint support, so it's very elitist, like Apple always is.

I find the question the op aska too broad. In some countries, cryptos are already regulated, while in some they are not. I think more will move toward regulation but some will probably remain as those that don't regulate cryptos. Then there is a huge difference in the regulations. There can be restrictions (for example, yes to trading but no to mining or yes to hodling but no to using as payment), there can be tough regulations that don't encourage usage and getting out from the shadows (high taxes, bureaucracy, mandatory KYC for everyone). So regulation doesn't always promote usage and growth of the economy. As for retirement, I think a person should be able to invest in what they deem fit, but funds can't deem cryptos as a low-risk investment.

1 BTC = 1 BTC
It's a simple tautology, and of course it's correct. But that doesn't give us any useful information. And if we want to use it as an argument, then by this tautology we actually mean that the price doesn't matter. Now that, however, isn't true. The purpose of money is to be a medium of exchange. And yes, you can exchange (sometimes) Bitcoin for goods or services. But let's say you have 10 BTC. Would it matter to you if you can get a nice flat for 1 BTC or just a good bike for 1 BTC? Or only one pizza for 1 BTC? I believe that it would. Because the purchasing power of money matters. So when 1 BTC is $60k, it means we can buy $60k worth of stuff with it. If it's $20k, we can buy three times less than that. Completely disregarding this fact seems unjustified to me.
So while I agree about the long-term perspective and about hodling, I have problems with the 1 BTC = 1 BTC phrase.

Thanks, op, for making a wonderful thread. I love it how it doesn't only contain facts, but also screens from news of the same media outlet over time, and a pretty reputable outlet.
I believe that Bitcoin will get out of this, just like always before. I am not sure how long it will take or what the bottom will be this time (I thought it would be $20k, but we're already moving even lower). But I am determined to wait it out if I can, and I hope many will do the same and won't lose money on panic selling.

I agree about stricter regulations, especially to ensure that scam practices are illegal, and that crypto scammers can be properly prosecuted. I don't, however, support an outright ban. Ethereum was an ICO. Had the ICOs been banned, we probably would not have got even the #2 coin of the crypto market, let alone a handful of others which aren't total garbage. Also, as for NFTs, I know Ukrainian foundations and also the government if I believe correctly use NFTs to fundraise for humanitarian and military causes to combat the effects of the war. So, again, had they been outright banned, way less money would have been gathered for a cause which I believe deserves support (and I'm pretty sure that most wouldn't argue that at least raising money for humanitarian relief is a good cause).
I don't know what we'll see in South Korea and how much power the president really had over such matters as financial regulations there, but we'll see.

Ukrainians know how to use a VPN, so it's not going to be a big deal. Even my mom who sometimes struggles with formatting in Word or making a presentation in PowerPoint has a VPN she successfully uses, and nobody even taught her how to get it and how to use it, she figured it out herself. What's more problematic is Russian school books at schools, subjects like Russian history, rubles as a currency, terrible prices and very limited food and medicine supplies on occupied territories (not to mention that Russia's killing people, torturing people, stealing grain etc.). Also, on what do you base the assumption that Starlink isn't an option because many don't like Musk? Musk is generally liked in Ukraine, and Starlink is great. It's just expensive, requires being set up in a location (and if a huge area is under occupation, it's a big challenge), and is more used for priority communications (for military communications), not for civilians to get info. And what's surprising that Putin's internet is better than no internet? Firstly, you can do some things to protect yourself and to gain access to actual information from non-Russian sources. Secondly, you can stay in touch with relatives.

I think it's too early on to say how long it will last. Sometimes the price starts sharply jumping straight back up (of course, with some corrections along the way). Other times it can take 2-3 years (with some improvements along the way, which are then followed by further recessions). In any case, throughout its history, it has always recovered eventually. While that, of course, doesn't mean that it will always be this way, and the future can be unpredictable, it means there's good reason to believe that this time will be no different.
I think it'll only take a few months to see major improvements, but I can be wrong, just like anyone else. For those who have funds to spare, now is a great time to buy.

Prior to 2017-2018, there was another major event which is just so tiny on the chart because of how much the price grew that it's hard to notice it if you don't know what to look for. In November 2013, the price was $1127, and then by April is fell to $360, and by January 2015 to $172. Next time it hit $1k was in January 2017. So of course it seemed like the good days were behind, and that Bitcoin might never hit $1k again. But boy oh boy people were wrong about that. I'm pretty sure those who are currently afraid Bitcoin won't recover and won't hit a new ATH are wrong as well. But the question remains how much time it will take. It can be a few months, can be a few years. I hope it's the former, but we should be prepared for the latter as well.

I am happy if it's indeed an indication that those striving to get 1 BTC are finally getting it. It's some wealth, but not much wealth in most countries. It's the sort of money that can be life-changing if you're not rich and barely middle class. I hope they'll hodl long enough to actually benefit from the change.
I also thought about whether the rich addresses are growing in numbers as well and assumed that perhars it's actually the riches panic selling now, so I am happy tranthidung provided links with this data. It seems that generally they tend to sell when the price is high and buy when it's getting lower, but there are temporary changes that don't conform to it as well (such that that over the last 1.5 months both the price and the number of the richest addresses has been decreasing.