I don't watch TV, so I didn't know it was a thing (and I don't think it is a thing in my country on TV, actually). I do agree with the op that it sounds like they are undermining Bitcoin just because they feel threatened by it and feel like it's in their best interest to scare potential clients away from something volatile and something they can invest in on their own. That's why it's great when TV shows mention cryptos in a positive or at least neutral way, to sort of balance the negativity of the talk shows.

There are still a few days left, and I think they allow both crypto and fiat donations for the mic, so perhaps someone with fiat would be the winner. There are two transactions so far, both quite small. I think it was their big mistake to make crypto donations in Ethereum, and not in Bitcoin. While Ethereum is #2, it is much less popular in Ukraine and probably in other countries as well. Just to give an example of the difference, a Ukrainian foundation that helps the army got 477 BTC of donations (currently almost 14 million dollars), but only 753 ETH (less than 1.4 million dollars).
Edit: I think they've changed the description from yesterday, actually, and now the mic is not for crypto donations, but for an NFT auction? Confusing and weird to make changes along the contest...

a) 13 b) 2:10
a) 10 b) 1:47

Hey, I just wanted to share something I saw today. As you probably know, Ukraine won the Eurovision this year. And you probably also know that Ukraine is quite crypto-friendly and has been increasingly so during the war. Today I saw this Instagram post by the winner of Eurovision Kalush that they're doing a charity auction to help the army. They're selling the pink hat to a random person who donated at least 5 EUR (so, it's a typical fiat thing) BUT the auction for the Eurovision mic is both in cryptos and in fiat, and whoever donates the most gets the mic. I don't know if any of you are interested to take part, but I thought it's an interesting contest to share, as it is yet another example of usage of cryptos, and a Eurovision mic is also an attractive prize. Unfortunately, I think that crypto donations are in ETH only, no BTC, which is why I'm putting it in the Altcoin section.
The Instagram post is here: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cd-aAKrotr6/.
The bio of Kalush has a link to addresses for taking part in this thing.

El Salvador is a very poor country. Third of the population live is poverty, the GDP puts the country around 100th place among the countries (slightly below), and on top of everything the IMF is pissed because of the Bitcoin-friendly policies they those. So there's absolutely no way El Salvador would become the richest country in the world or even get into the top-10 in 8 years. It would be an economic miracle if they reduce the poverty rate by half in that time, and if their GDP gets somewhere around 50 (similar to that of Portugal or Greece). So far, though, not enough time passed to see if their crypto policy is doing any good to the economy.

Op, whether you should worry and what you should do next depends on what's in your portfolio. If these are high-cap popular cryptos, there's a chance they'll recover (especially if it's the top ones like Bitcoin or Ethereum). If they are no-name low-cap coins, there's a chance they'll go up again, but some never do. Overall, I wouldn't be too worried, it just seems that you haven't been around in 2017-2018 when so many of us went through this phase (or perhaps you witnessed it but didn't invest back then). But then it worked out for those who were patient enough to wait and those who invested in strong projects. Some coins didn't fully recover (like XRP), but it wasn't all bad, and some went way up (like BTC and ETH).

People can make all sorts of assumptions and predictions, but there are only a handful of ways to affect the price, and they are not in our hands. One is being an extremely rich and influential person like Elon Musk, and make a big announcement and possibly pour a billion or two into or out of Bitcoin. Then there are governmental decisions of countries that have a lot of crypto traders or miners. If there's a bill to ban some crypto activities in a country like that or if a country like that surprisingly decides to adopt a very favorable crypto policy, that can affect the price as well. Also, if you're WHO or something like this, very influential, and you make an announcement that can have a major effect on the economy, that will affect the price as well. But in all these cases we're talking about a short-term effect, and I'd say a normally no more than 20% price change. Whether this trend persists or the price quickly gets back to its previous range basically depends on the community of traders and investors and their behavior. We're all a small part of that community, too small to cause serious change on our own or even if many people unite.

The lowest price point I see is $26,900 (I use Coingecko for such data), and it was on May 12, so I'm not sure that op meant by the price getting below $26,000. Same goes for Ethereum which, according to Coingecko, didn't go below $1800.
Also, I don't think that what happens in the crypto market is related to the stock market and, in turn, with the Federal Reserve's policies. It's quite a separate industry, and while there's significant correlation with the stock market sometimes, it doesn't mean that the causes are the same.
I also see no reason to limit cryptos to only 5% of one's portfolio.

a) 12  b) 1:58
a) 9    b) 1:35

In my country (Ukraine), Internet penetration is higher than in El Salvador, and a much higher rate of banked population. And among those who have bank cards, 87% view a smartphone as an alternative to physical cards for payments. Digitalization is a huge thing in my country, and we have many services that people access online, usually via smartphones. All this makes my country very different from El Salvador, so adoption is likely to go better here than there. Adoption of cryptos is currently underway, and allowing payments in BTC is a part of the government's long-term plan. I expect reasonable crypto income taxes, useful infrastructure, and then I can totally see a successful adoption.

1) Liverpool
2)  Over
3)  Under
4)  Over 
5)  Yes
6)  2nd

7)   Yes
8.)  Yes

9)  Yes
10)  Yes

11)  Yes
12)  Yes

13)  No
14)  No

15)  11'

I think the government does own a significant amount of BTC there (and by the 'government' I mean the taxpayers' money), so if the price doesn't improve and these are not the reserves (if they can't afford to just wait it out for a few months), it can be a big problem. I hope they still rely on the USD for regular spending, though, and in that case it's only a temporary issue. As for adoption by the people of El Salvador, I've seen research that it's not that high, so again, it won't affect the majority. But it can discourage other countries from adoption, of course, when the price has suddenly decreased like this.

Not many people voted in the poll yet, and I wonder that the ratio and the result is going to be later. I think it's rational to diversify holdings, so that in case something happens to some of your money, you don't lose it all. And my fiat is actually quite diversified because it's often a requirement to open a bank account of a specific bank in my country when you are getting employed, and having multiple bank accounts from various banks is quite common in my country. As for BTC, I thought about diversifying, but then I figured there's a good chance I'll forget about one of the wallets or access to it, and I'll end up losing that money because of it. So to me, it's easier to focus on security of one wallet than to diversify BTC (though, of course, I do have some alts and they are stored separately in multilple places).

I don't think the units matter that much. I don't like the 1μBTC unit, to be honest. I think that units should be made for convenience, and 1 of something should be clear, graspable, and also not totally worthless. 1 BTC is too much, but 1 μBTC is too little. I'm comfortable with mBTC, and with parts of Bitcoin (0.001, 0.002, etc). I know people who instead talk about 100,000 Satoshi, 200,000 Satoshi, etc., but I can't immediately guess how much this or that is. As long as people understand each other and use the denomination that helps them understand how much value they're talking about, I think it's all good.

I think there's some nuance to money printing and a crisis. It matters who is printing the money, and how much. If it's a poor country whose fiat is not in demand internationally, it can easily backfire and lead to hyperinflation. If it's the US, whose fiat is in very high demand and trusted, they can print a trillion dollars and face minor repercussions but won't jump into the hyperinflation mode.
Also, while when inflation rises, the stock market often rises as well, if we're talking about an economic crisis, the market crushes.
And the war is NOT a solution to well-being and financial sustainability. Surely neither you nor your loved ones ever faced an actual war if you are saying that. A war crushes the economy, makes tons of people lose their jobs, many end up in poverty, and then there's also the risk of dying from shelling, war crimes, starvation or lack of medical care.
Yes, the current system isn't good, and it's often very unfair. But an actual war won't fix it, it would only make things worse.

The food crisis is happening because of Russia's war against Ukraine, and currently the most pressing matter is that a lot of grain is blocked in Ukrainians ports in the Black Sea by Russia, so it just can't reach its destination, reach those who most need it. So if there's anything an average Joe can do to stop the war, they should (protests against the war, against the Black Sea blockade, against trading with Russia). Also, if we're talking about middle-class people, they aren't the ones who'll be hit by the crisis the most. But still, if it's possible to afford it, I'd stock up on flour, dry pasta, yeast (to bake the bread if there's none), non-perishable goods. Not much, no need to go crazy, but just some of it in case there's a severe food shortage and you need to survive.

Poverty is a huge problem on the African continent, and you can't invest money if you are barely making ends meet and have no extra money, so it is an obstacle to buying Bitcoin. An obstacle which the op missed, I think, is Internet penetration. How are you supposed to use Bitcoin if you don't have Internet access? And in many countries in Africa more than a half of the population don't have it. So serious economic and infrastructure problems must be solved first, and then people might get to use Bitcoin.

This is an inspiring story. The parents to seem curious, though, as they asked about the yellow "B" and about the charts (many wouldn't care enough to ask). I also love that the mine analogy was relevant to them, and overall your explanation seems very newbie-friendly, which is great (I agree with Zlantann you'd be a good teacher).
My experience with a 75-year-old relative wasn't as successful. But he wasn't curious, he already thought he knew Bitcoin's a scam, so he wanted to talk me out of having anything to do with it. Some other relatives of similar age know roughly that it's something digital online, and that I'm into it, but they also think it's something shady and aren't interested in learning more.

I am not bothered that we don't know who Satoshi is, and I think I'd prefer it to stay this way. The op raises a good question about it being created by a bad person. To me, though, it wouldn't be a deal-breaker if it's one of the top billionaires, as I still use Amazon and Facebook, so I'd probably use Bitcoin as well. But if this person is someone who committed terrible crimes (mass murders, sexual violence, stuff like this), then I'd most likely not want to use something this person created. I'd also be unhappy if this person is against vaccinations, homophobic, conspiracy theory fan, and stuff like this, but I'm not sure if it would incline me to abandon Bitcoin altogether.

Somehow transaction fees have been miraculously okay for almost a year now. Sure, sometimes they were higher than one would wish, but most of the time the fee is below $2, which is quite acceptable. Of course, if we're talking about paying for coffee, and then $1.5 of fees, it's not good. But if it's a solid purchase, such as groceries for a few days or a monthly pass for transport, or utility bills, the fees are, IMO, very acceptable. The problem might be with waiting if 0-confirmation transactions don't get accepted. But realistically, to pay for things that require fast processing of a transaction (in a physical shop or at a train station), custodial wallets or something like the LN would be needed.
But of course, for countries where many live in poverty, even $1.5 is significant and unacceptable as a fee. So yeah, it's not for everyone and not for every place.