well, it really feels very odd to see them exposed to the corona virus so that is a big sign why it takes a very long time to recover, we can all see the physical condition of the soccer players who are athletes so they should be able to have strong endurance, for example Ronaldo, who recently contracted Covid, was able to recover quickly.
Not everything is so clear, because such highly trained athletes, which undoubtedly include Gabriel Jesus and Waker, are an easy target for infection due to weakened immunity due to such overtraining. Much depends on the extent to which the athlete has suffered COVID, in severe or mild form. It should be clear to everyone that a mild illness, respectively, should contribute to a faster recovery, and Vice versa, a severe form of the disease can even put an end to a sports career, given that COVID often affects the lungs. |
|
|
|
Connor fight wasn't a real fight neither, but at least that was a good purse, or even the fight he had last year with that Japanese guy, that was not a real fight neither but at least he got paid better, Logan is just nobody and Mayweather should have seen that this wasn't really profitable enough. Not that 5 million + ppv is nothing, but he could have made more with someone else famous.
At least Connor is a fairly good MMA fighter, although of course he had no chance against Mayweather in a fight under the rules of boxing. However, I also think that Mayweather would not have a chance in a fight under the rules of MMA, respectively. I'm also surprised that Mayweather couldn't find an opponent with a higher status, given the talent with which Floyd is able to profit from his boxing talent, but I think that simply in the absence of other options, Mayweather just decided to remind himself so that the public does not forget. |
|
|
|
Covid will definitely make adjustments to the economy and approaches to doing business. If we talk about doing business, there is clearly a trend towards the development of online services, delivery services for goods and food. There will clearly be a negative impact on offline retail. The demand for commercial real estate and office space rental will definitely fall, but the demand for sites for distribution centers for online services will grow ... In a word, we will have several years of a very strong transformation of the markets and services we are used to.
When they talk about the ongoing transformation of the economy, they overlook one factor: that this is all happening because of the pandemic, which will not continue indefinitely and will eventually end. All formed positions before the epidemic existed for a reason, respectively, everything will come back after the pandemic. Commercial real estate and office space will not go away, and when the owners reduce their financial appetites, the tenants will gradually return back. Also about the delivery service, if it is more convenient for someone to overpay, but to receive goods at home, then this is good. But there will still be customers who better come to the store or delivery point and get there saving money. |
|
|
|
Our technology are evoling every year if big companies or corporation will not adopt bitcoin it is their lose almost all technology are the central of our worlds which also hs something to earn bitcoin and it is true they seeing a good potential in bitcoin which has the greatest advantage in the future not into our world but also into market not because pandemic hit and and affect our inflation. Other companies and celebreties already seen the worth of bitcoin by investing. Not thinking about risk but it is really worth for them to become a role model to people to choose bitcoin as well
Any large corporation is completely indifferent to what exactly to earn, because in the end, the goal of any business is to make a profit. At this stage of human development and the economy, respectively, the most convenient type of settlement for large corporations are fiat currencies and there are no signs that the situation will change in the direction of bitcoin in the near future. Companies and celebrities can buy bitcoin and other alternative cryptocurrencies as much as they want, but all their calculations will be conducted in fiat currencies, despite all modern technologies, because modern technologies are not alien to fiat currencies, including blockchain technology. |
|
|
|
Government would simply not allow Bitcoin to replace fiat. They tolerate it for now because there's no consumer adoption. If they saw that people actually use it and it comes together with tax evasion, money laundering or just hiding your transactions, they would just ban it. Without centralized exchages, Bitcoin will trade for 1-3% of the current price. It's also naive to think that just because Bitcoin is rising, it would keep rising forever. Even now a lot of investors understand that this is a bubble.
Yeah i agree with you irrespective the level of cryptocurrency in the world I don't think government would give bitcoin Chance to dominates over fiat, because from views I found out that government don't don't really like the growth of bitcoin in society There are just some pillars in the management of the economy and, accordingly, the state, the destruction of which leads to the destruction of the state itself and the Fiat currency, including digital format, is among these fundamental pillars. The state may allow some experiments in this area in the form of decentralized cryptocurrencies, but it will never be able to allow these cryptocurrencies to become the dominant means of payment within the economy. |
|
|
|
An absolutely fair distribution of resources and benefits is a utopia. Unfortunately, but this is a fact! There will always be some bias in favor of "their groups". There will always be higher priority areas of support that may seem "illogical" or "unfair". For example, it makes no special sense for the state to create a financial paradise for the population, but it makes sense to support large companies that provide jobs, pay taxes, and develop the economy. This is pragmatism that underlies the development of the state. And the game of "philanthropy and equality" is populism and attempts at manipulation under the guise of supposedly good deeds
The funny thing is that the person who allocates resources probably thinks that the distribution is quite fair  It is impossible to please absolutely the entire population and any government helping one segment of the population you will have to face the discontent of other segments. And decentralization is not the most optimal assistant in optimal management in the economy, no matter how sympathetic we are to the ideas of decentralization and justice. |
|
|
|
If you remember the Tenshin Nasukawa exhibition fight in Japan it looks like a scripted match, just go and watch the fight and you will understand. Yes i know the fact that Tenshin Nasukawa is not a boxer and he was really young and just weighed around 128 pounds.
It really looks scripted but they are the only people that knows what's really happening inside. Any exhibition fight is prone to getting scripted as its not really a real competition, the main purpose is just to entertain the fans, so we can consider that a fight is scripted, but who would complain if they don't know. Scenarios are different and with varying degrees of detail: from "you do this and that every minute" to " baby, you're going to lie on the floor in the third round" For example, I read that in the same wrestling, fighters before a fight agree only on the outcome of the match, and then there is purely improvisation with one side playing along with the other. It is clear that even in an exhibition fight, Logan Paul has no chance against a boxer like Mayweather, the other question is when, according to the scenario, Floyd will be allowed to start acting in earnest. |
|
|
|
I personally doubt that the transition to a digital cash will happen anytime soon as there are lots of factors to be considered.
Due to the disparity among developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries, the latter two suffers from technological deficiencies and innovation as each country has their own set of priorities. In addition, the shift to a digital cash system implies that the platform used would be secure and tamper-proof in order to avoid loss of cash. Lastly, the presence of physical cash has been in existence since time immemorial.
The barter system of transaction slowly transformed to using coins which represent cash in the society. Despite the convenience of having digital cash to purchase goods, a shift to this kind of system will leave other countries behind.
It is necessary to clearly separate the concepts of "transition to digital money" and "full transition to digital money". It is safe to say that in some countries, the transition to digital money has mostly already occurred, and some countries with a small population may even announce a full transition to digital money. The world is heterogeneous, so a complete transition to digital money in the near future does not make any sense. Poor countries may not have enough resources to do so, and large countries cannot afford to do so because of their size and infrastructure security. |
|
|
|
But still - you can not call BTC "fake wealth". It's like calling an Apple stockholder a beggar just because he's holding Apple stock instead of dollars.
The state in which the cryptocurrency now is the same shares of Apple or IBM just in a different form.
But at the same time, when switching to the" natural "value of the cryptocurrency, it will also not be called" fake wealth " because it will already be a full - fledged means of payment. Quite a subtle and slippery question, in general.
I will even say more that all these super-rich people from the top ten richest people on the planet do not keep all their funds in the form of Fiat cash or in Bank deposits, but keep the bulk of their capital in the form of shares or shares in their business. Recently, the mass media slipped information about Elon Musk who does not have his own money and he constantly borrows it from others for living and food, so all this talk about fake wealth is both true and false. |
|
|
|
Using loans for bitcoin investment is always not recommended even if the market is in bearish season. It may be profitable in the eyes of the investors but does not guarantee ensured profits enough to pay the monthly interest of such loans. And what about if the market goes on bearish the whole year? So it's never a good start to take loans for bitcoin investment because if its price fluctuations that is inevitable.
The most dangerous thing in this situation is that no one will give an absolutely accurate forecast about the timing of the end of the bear season, and in the case of bitcoin, the previous history teaches in the complete unpredictability of market behavior. Another classic of the genre is the entry of inexperienced investors into the asset at high price levels and strong disappointment after the imminent correction. Unfortunately, bitcoin is hardly an asset with a predictable pricing scenario, and it is irresponsible and dangerous to take out loans yourself or give advice on using borrowed funds in this market. |
|
|
|
Which is why I think the best case would be giving money to people who get the vaccination. All of us need money during this period right? That is the smart thing to do? Well, that means if we could somehow so stimulus checks to people who get the vaccination, people will line up to get vaccinated, there will be very very small minority that wouldn't in exchange for a stimulus check.
I also think that a really better idea than giving money to those who are not sick with COVID is to give money to those who have expressed their consent to vaccination. People who have not yet had COVID, but have received money for it, may well get sick in the near future, and those who have already been vaccinated will not get sick and will not create a subsequent burden on the state health system. Therefore, the benefits are mutual for both people and the state. |
|
|
|
He is absolutely right, Bitcoin is bubble and those who are already in will not believe this, they will tag you as anti Bitcoin and at the same time, those complaining currently will be happy if they are the one who bought bitcoin at bottom with this sweet profit. We will always complain about something especially when it's not in our favour, that's why I try possible best with ant influencers with negative energy with Bitcoin. Somebody should try to setup a wallet for that man any time bitcoin goes below $10k, he would keep quiet for eternity ones he is in profit.  A bubble that will be in favor to you once you believe on it, Bitcoin is too volatile and maybe this is why many says Bitcoin is a bubble and they are just creating panic. Predictions is normal and we have to believe on our own prediction and don’t just listen to anyone, if you see great potential with Bitcoin then you have nothing to worry about what people say about Bitcoin, its just a matter of how much risk you can take. Bitcoin is already so often called a bubble by all sorts of experts for its not so long history, so there is no certainty that such statements are unlikely to cause any panic among investors, I will even say more that investors do not react to them at all A real panic among investors can be caused by completely different words coming from government officials and some events that can directly affect bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin and gold are too different to say that one is better than the other. Bitcoin is much more volatile and risky, so it's already a bad idea to measure their pure performance without considering it. When investors buy gold, they buy a guarantee that it won't crash for 50% in one day. When investors buy Bitcoin, they buy an opportunity to see a 20% growth in one day. Also gold has been in use for thousands of years, so people can be sure that it won't suddenly start degrading due to some chemical reactions, while Bitcoin still haven't been fully tested in some extreme scenarios.
It all depends from the point of view of which person we are talking about, on the degree of risk that is acceptable. Because when it comes to a protective asset, in this case, gold is much preferable due to the mechanisms of interaction with the market that have already been formed for centuries and the more or less expected reaction of the market to unfavorable conditions. Gold is accepted as a protective asset by all market participants. Bitcoin is relatively young, not all investors treat bitcoin with full seriousness and are ready to work with it. |
|
|
|
^ Honestly, in my personal and honest opinion, the reward system won’t work. It would only add to a lot of expenses your country has. Why?
It is simple. In order to prove that someone is COVID-19 free, there must be an examination. That is called the swab test, and it costs roughly around 100 USD per test depends on which country you are in. It may be more expensive. At that stage, the government will have an expense. Then, of course, the compensation for having no COVID. It hurts me to think about how much money would it cost for the government.
It all depends on the amount of remuneration in the end, if the amounts are scanty, then the costs will also be scanty, respectively Here everything is not so clear from the point of view of morality, because not all people fall ill with COVID precisely because of non-compliance with precautionary measures, because in any case it is impossible to take into account all the accompanying factors and the probability of infection still remains. |
|
|
|
We have lots of known personalities of this market which are mostly institutional investors on the other side but they are now considering bitcoin
but they aren't really making some sure impact towards it.
I would not say so categorically, because the market is greedy for information occasions and well-known personalities can have a short-term effect on the market, not without reason many advertising campaigns are based on the participation of famous personalities and attracting attention to the product due to this, but if this is not supported by fundamental reasons, then the market will still take its course and will still return to the usual balance of supply and demand. |
|
|
|
I don't think is luck tbh. You can't get lucky that often, not even Bayern can  That Leverkusen game showed very well, why Bayern seems to get lucky more often than others: They wanted it more, attacked relentlessly and put in hard work. All this, while Leverkusen was just looking to defend the draw, which works against other teams, but not against Bayern. So it was one of the few times I was actually happy seeing Bayern score a late winning goal, because Leverkusen's approach was just pathetic, if they want to be a top team. And I have no idea, why Leverkusen parked the bus in the end. It might have been due to Bayern putting on lots of pressure, where you have no choice but to defend deep with all 11 players. In my opinion it's more a mentality problem in the end though. Leverkusen was strangely satisfied with a draw, while Bayern is never satisfied with a draw. Luck also plays an important role, although the level of luck depends heavily on the degree of dominance of the club, because for sure you will be more lucky if you hit 30 shots on goal than if you have 1 shot It is difficult for any german club to dominate the entire match against Bayern, given the depth of the squad and the budget of the munich club, so you have to put the bus on at times. Still, for the intrigue in the championship, it would be more useful if Leverkusen still survived and played in a draw. |
|
|
|
It looks like the downtrend on the financial system is inevitable. How do you think this will affect crypto? People used to refer to gold in the past, will they move to crypto this time instead?
I kinda think, that the upcoming crisis actually gives crypto a chance.
Based on the example of this March post, we can conclude that the pandemic has a positive impact on the crypto market. The question is by what? I suppose due to the fact that the entire world economy is in decline, and people are increasingly switching to digital environment. I hope bitcoin will hold out high enough for the main high-quality projects to realize themselves. With all my respect and reverence for bitcoin, I don't think bitcoin is ready to take the place of gold in investors ' portfolios yet. Gold has a long history as a protective asset and let's not forget that the reserves of central banks, commercial consist partly of gold and this is not in doubt. it is great that some investors and funds have started to pay attention to bitcoin as an investment object and as a protective asset, but still bitcoin will not replace gold, only will push it in portfolios. |
|
|
|
|
It all comes down to questions of terminology. If in a month the price of bitcoin falls by one and a half to two times to the current level, then some experts will shout about the burst bubble, and other experts will talk about the correction that inevitably had to happen after such a big rise. As for the limit of the issue of bitcoin in the amount of 21 million, I want to say that bitcoin is open software and after a while the project can fork into branches, one of which will allow the release of an additional number of coins. So we can say that David Rosenberg is right and wrong at the same time.
|
|
|
|
While I completely agree with you and I will never do something like that, the fact that there is a market for that suggests that there are people that are willing to do it, but who will? Exactly the kind of person that has spent months or even years buying from those kind of markets different drugs and taking them without worrying about whether the product that they were sold is what they were told, in that case those are kind of people who probably have no problem applying that fake vaccine to themselves.
That is, you want to say that some people are ready to constantly be deceived by not reacting very critically to any high-profile offers on the Internet? Or do they simply have no idea about the product they are buying? I still think that scammers posting such ads on the Internet are like fishermen throwing their bait in the hope of biting. If there are buyers for such a product, this does not mean that such behavior is a system for such buyers and they constantly become a victim of scammers. |
|
|
|
Tether to me seems to be the scam of the century. I believe there are way too many better stablecoins like Binance's USD (BUSD) to convert into, but as I can see that it can't be used on too many websites (especially on gambling and casino sites which are mainly targeted by USDT users as well as probably no direct purchases) is the reason here why tether has been a big hit.
It's not just Tether, though. Any privately owned currency is problematic, since you have to trust the entity that claims they're holding the funds. I'm staying away from all stablecoins that consist of tokens supposedly backed by private wealth. They're all effectively IOUs. Such tokens were created as a counterweight and at the same time a tool for interacting with classic cryptocurrencies, which, as is known, do not have any material, financial or other security in principle. Here, the level of security and the capital that stands behind the token comes to the fore. As for the capital security of commercial enterprises, scandals constantly occur in classical markets, and with such tokens, this can happen even more so, given the specifics of the cryptocurrency market with its multiple ups and downs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
