I reckon it wouldn't be bad? I mean if he didn't know jack about managing the team, pretty sure he can spend money to hire someone who does know. He's a businessman, he can probably adapt to whatever he sees as an opportunity, whether he knows jack about it or not. He's probably going to set his sights on trying to improve the club, though tbf I think anyone who's trying to bid would try to do so, and I don't think there's much difference between those bidders anyway, the team will try, keyword try, to improve.

Assuming the movement of organizations or any related group that transact with crypto as a representative of crypto itself is... kinda dumb? I mean yes, it's open for all, but that's the point, Bitcoin doesn't take any side, it's always available for use whatever you're situation you are in. Those people are simply investors of crypto, they're not really a spokesperson for it, nor is it going to ever have one imo.

It's probably on the good side tbh? I mean it gives more people options, and more options are always the better thing imo. It won't change ofc, it was what it was made for, if it changed well, it wouldn't be Crypto (or Bitcoin rather).

Well ultimately the one to blame would be the person involved themselves, the rest are just third parties with some degree of influence to the party involved, emphasis on the "some". Sure parents can actively involve themselves in educating their kid, but in the end, it would still be the kid themselves who would decide if he would do something or not. As I said in a previous thread before, influence can be long-lasting but at the same time, it could also be not. A person can choose what they  can be influenced on imo.

Well, waiting never fails you imo, if you're in no rush to take profit in then yea, just wait. I'm of the opinion that we'd see steady movements for the next few months, ups and downs there but it wouldn't deviate much from where we are right now. Shorts might profit off of that, but hodlers wouldn't really get anything out of it. Still stand by my current strategy of going for DCA though, hasn't failed me yet and I don't think it ever will.

Accurate doesn't mesh well with speculation imo.

That's the point, they can "steal" it for whatever reasons they want and they can make it look perfectly legal no matter how you want. They control the data behind your account and so if they deem that they could take it, then they would, easy as that.

Yea I don't know what kind of dumbass fantasy world you're living in but it doesn't work that way, at least not anymore. Maybe go back to idk, thousand years back? Not really sure, but yea, it doesn't work that way nowadays.

Most sites have deposit bonuses afaik, you wouldn't be hardpressed to actually look for one, heck you might even put out other requirements since there's a lot of them that give out deposit bonuses. I'd recommend sportsbet (though it's mostly because it's the only one I actually played in and have tried fully.

I wouldn't recommend 1xbit or any gambling sites affiliated with it though. Stay away from it, there's been a lot of accusations with it and if you check, most 1xbit sig users have negative trust on them by most users.

It's more like helping them keep their money safe no? But technically the economy of the country would be rather out of hand already and sanctions would have already been applied to it, whether they want it or not. To make a comparison, it's like Bitcoin is a getaway method for them to escape a burning place, but when they come back, the place would still be burned down. Might've been the best option for the rich to keep themselves from being rich, but certainly not an option for the country itself to survive on it.

It wasn't exactly that different? I mean we're still in the $40k levels, after that rise from 2021, I'm pretty sure we're still standing at a pretty good place. Sentiments are pretty low though due to it dropping off from ath, but again, that's pretty normal imo, we won't see any market that wouldn't have any dumps and only pumps.

The year isn't so favorable so far, but it doesn't mean that it'd go down for the rest. I'd expect a steady movement so far, but reaching a new ATH doesn't seem that likely anymore. But who knows really, the year is still long, we're not even halfway through it.

Well tbf, it started out at an age of 16-17, which spiraled out of control probably during that 6-7 year gap from when he first started. I guess they're blaming the medication and process and whatnot that the kid underwent for said years but still wasn't able to stop gambling. There are a lot of cases where influence on a young age actually tends to stay when we grow up after all, especially if the said activity was still being done even after the start up. Its kinda like a virus that grew worse and worse.

From what I know in our country it's the usual offering of help for gamblers that has problems, exclusion to using casinos depending on their financial situation (or whenever signs of gambling disorders come up, such as mood swings, excessive stays in casinos, etc.,). On one note though, I honestly think medication is just a temporary stop measure, it doesn't actually help in solving the root of the problem. It's like putting a stop gap, and if not resolved within that time frame where the medication is effective, i hardly doubt people could get over addiction. As to how to stop it, well, not really sure, I think it varies from person to person?

I guess the issue is that Bitcoin with its high volatility changes could possibly cause issues in pricing (especially for non-automated ones) since it can change high or low quickly? Pretty sure we could still determine the values of goods and services with Bitcoin just like how we do it with fiat.

Though I honestly don't think there'd ever come a time where we need to do that, fiat isn't going anywhere anyway. We may see wide adoption of Bitcoin but it certainly isn't going to remove Fiat in action imo.

I think it depends on what you want to actually discuss? If you're uncomfortable since it needs you to share some personal details then you don't have to (and I honestly recommend you don't), but if not, then I'm pretty sure it should be safe? This forum is for discussion after all, and a lot of people want to help you. I assume it's a withdrawal issue of some sort, there's tons of situations here that are similar to you afaik, so it should be acceptable and safe to share it imo.

USDT is pegged to it's fiat value USD, so I don't see the reason why it would be a safehaven? Not to mention that it can be frozen even if it was in your wallet, whether you want it or not. Pretty sure you should easily be able to find instances where Tether on wallets was frozen, most of it due to it being a "hacked" amount or something similar. So to say, having an asset where others could freeze it isn't really something I'd consider as a safehaven.
 Well go do so, you'd only highlight yourself being a dumbass.

So you see your "BTC" asset on your wallet, and its balance is 0 am I correct? Have you tried checking the TX to check whether the transfer was successful? That's the best way to check whether your friend really "sent" you 1 BTC or not. Naturally, you can't transfer whatever you don't have in your wallet, so it's a no-brainer as to why you can't transfer your Bitcoin, it's because it's not yours yet. Other than that then there's really no way, maybe check if the wallet they sent it was correct?

It's called NFT games no? The assets that are owned by other users are originally made by the others through their assets through breeding (or some other kind of mechanic). The rules and mechanics of the game should still be dependent on how the developer wanted it, so in the end, it depends on what game you're trying to exactly play. Most of the NFT games I know though are just simply clicking and watching it do automatic battles, or card-based PVP fights like Hearthstone, Yugioh, etc.

Well, they're all "might" be opportunities, no one can really know so really, go invest on what you think is the best, and probably if you're a panicky type of person, just stop looking at it and let it sit for a few years. Most investors fail and pull out at a loss since they're afraid of losing "more", but the point is you already are supposed to have lost whatever you've invested in the first place. Always take time as a factor when investing, it's one thing that keeps most investors away but also the one thing that could help investors profit imo.

I don't think #1 would get that much traction as a service? It's not that much different from normal payment methods imo. #2 sounds great though, it's pretty much what most people want for privacy and anonymity needs though wouldn't it shut itself down once crypto is accepted as a general payment for most businesses? Or am I missing something here? Though I guess it's a good startup right now since adoption is still rather minimal. There's also the case of limits (which I understand is required), but some may not actually like it. Still I reckon there'd be users who'd want to use it.

Is this about confirmation on the blockchain? Cause I'm pretty sure that the wallet of casinos would always wait the confirmation in the transactions before crediting it to your account. It's not really a matter of "wanting to do it" or anything, it's just how crypto transactions work. The blockchain stands as the middle man for both sides so ofc both sides need to wait for it to confirm before the two sides are able to do anything else. At the very least, I'm pretty sure most would require at least one confirmation before creditting it.

Or you can just invest. Free from problems of development and worries imo, unless you want to start up a business centered in crypto, I'd honestly avoid doing those kinds of stuff. Maybe NFT stuff as a personal hobby, like you're an artist, or an aspiring one and want to sell yours, then feel free, but if you were to join in the hype, I'd honestly say stop, you're more likely to lose money. Well doing investment stuff or starting up a business doesn't need to happen only when crypto is low, you can honestly do it anytime. Just make sure it's something people would actually be willing to invest in.

A good license still gives the user some peace of mind though. Not that I'm saying all licensed casinos are good, hence the word "good" before the license. Curacao, for example, is a license afaik that can easily be obtained by anyone, it doesn't make it a bad one, but it can easily be obtained as long as you have the money afaik. Also, I don't think people often check provably fair at the start? Pretty sure casinos would put priority in wanting more exposure so they'd want something that could let them have an initial good reputation at first glance.