11) Jan Blachowicz
10) Ion Cutelaba
9) Louis Smolka
8 ) Amanda Ribas
7) Frank Camacho
6) Jake Hadley
5) Andrea Lee
4) Alan Patrick
3) Angela Hill
2) Tatsuro Taira
1) Andre Petroski

I think that environmental organizations should do their research or review existing research (not biased sponsored shit, but legit things) before putting up proposals. What are the most impactful areas in terms of climate change? Which are the easiest to change potentially? Which can be reduced rather than fully abolished? Which can be restructured or abandoned for the sake of better options? It's best to tackle big industries and make policies that would affect many agents on the market, rather than crack down on particular things, such as crypto mining IMO. I hope that there will be enough counteraction in the US.

I've seen it happen many times, especially when it comes to 24 hours. From time to time, altcoins experience short-term gains which are higher than Bitcoin or top altcoins experience during those days. The difference is the risk and stability. Bitcoin can have periods when it's going down, yes, and periods when it's in stagnation. However, long-term, it always recovers and goes even higher than before. There's only one Bitcoin currency, and a handful of top altcoins. As for those alts that can high short-term, there are hundreds of options, literally, and it's very hard to predict which will go up and when. So the short-term gains are high, but often seen in retrospect.

a) 10  b) 1:45
a) 9    b) 1:28

I don't think that's the reason, if that's true at all. If it's a security risk, wouldn't it be possible to contact authorities? Anyway, at first I thought the kid was a dick for asking a lot of money. Then I saw the account has almost 460k followers, which is quite big and thus certainly more valuable than $5k. And Musk is very rich, so why not just pay up and settle it. In any case, that would cost way less than buying Twitter, much less. So the explanation doesn't sound reasonable.
And, in any case, I don't think it will affect the crypto market.

I don't use stablecoins and I do think there's a special danger in them, so I think it's good they'll be regulated. The danger comes from the fact that it's not hard to look and see how volatile cryptos are, and to realize that buying them and hodling them involves certain risks. With stablecoins, however, the situation is very different. They seem to not be volatile, so people believe in their stability. However, they're not stable due to strong state budget and financial policies behind them (unlike fiat), and they are not fully supported by any valuable resources like gold, so they can collapse if there's enough panic going on or if something fishy is done by their creators/dev teams.

It's a nice article for Mother's Day. But they say it's about bringing meaningful change to financial security, which is not really the same as getting rich. Getting rich is a personal gain, something unnecessary. Financial security of a family is not. It's actually stressed in the article, as well, that it's not really just to invest for oneself. As for whether more women are joining the market, I'm not sure if there are representative stats on the matter. Many might not want to disclose their gender, and I'm not sure comprehensive research was ever conducted on the matter. But I hope that the discrepancy will decrease in this area and other areas as well.

I think that fighting climate change is important, and a significant part of it is turning to greener sources of energy. So I would actually support the tightening policies if there's research to support that it will make a difference. That being said, I think it's unfair that miners are targeted specifically when others can do business as usual. The measures should set requirements to all big energy consumers, not to crypto miners in particular. That would both make a bigger difference and be more fair. And, once again, all this should be done if there's strong evidence to support that it will be a big improvement in terms of the climate change.

That's a very good point, actually. It seems they don't provide access to Russia as a country. However, there have been news that they blocked 25 thousand addresses related to Russia on March 8.
So I guess it means that there are at least some Russians using Coinbase anyway, and they will be affected by this restriction. I'm not sure if these are people residing in Russia and using VPNs or Russian citizens residing in other countries, though.
Do you think they'll seize the money? That's not how I understood the news. Given that there was a comparison with Binance, I figured it would be done similarly. On Binance, if I understand correctly, the exchange warned people that new restrictions will be imposed and allowed getting all the money out of the exchange (at least allowed a time window for that). I'd expect Coinbase to address it in a similar fashion, saying that the restrictions are being put in place and that they have time till a certain day to withdraw their money.
I should also add that these are not frivolous actions of exchanges, they are only following international sanctions.

This info seems very fresh (at least, I didn't see it in the news when I googled it in English), and I'm not 100% sure if it will be confirmed later, but my source is the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak. In his official telegram channel, he wrote that Coinbase will follow something similar to what Binance did when they restricted Russian wallets with over $10 worth of cryptos. He says that in case of Coinbase, the limit will be restricted access to wallets of Russian citizens whose balances are above 10,000 EUR. He says that the ability to top up the account is already restricted, and that the blocking of accounts will occur on May 31. Actions are explained by the approved package of EU and Switzerland's sanctions from April 10.

What do you think of such actions? Is it the problem of centralization or the strength of consolidated institutional response to you?

I tried trading some time ago, but I kept making wrong decisions even though they seemed obvious in retrospect, and I realized it's not my thing. I figured it might be possible to invest my time into really getting to know how to do it well, but I wasn't interested in that. So instead, I focused on other things and on occasional long-term investments. It's okay not to be a trader, and I think it's also very important to admit your weaknesses to yourself and be able to stop in time if you see you're not doing well with a certain thing, and it's hurting you. And it's important not to invest what one can't afford to lose: a simple yet often broken rule.

Op, it's a nice question about the standard of living, and it's interesting to see how others feel about their countries. I must say, however, that people often judge such things by personal circumstances (what sort of place they were in and where they are now, and maybe their relatives), but that isn't always representative of the overall population, which is why looking at puchasing power assessments, average prices and salaries, GDP and inflation rates is important. My country in Ukraine, so I don't know what to say. It's obvious that right now, many people are much worse off than they were before the war, and it's likely that the hardship will continue after the war for some time before the economy can get back on track. But before that, I think things were going okay. The prices were rising, yes, and the inflation rate has not been ideal, but the salaries grew significantly as well, and I was much better off in 2021 than 5 years before that.

I don't like that Twitter was actually bought by Musk, by the way. I thought that it would play out differently, ensuring that there is no biggest investor and that the company isn't in the hands of one person. I also liked Jack Dorsey more than Musk in terms of his crypto attitude. And Musk really can abuse a lot on Twitter if it becomes his, right? Not like he already doesn't have too much influence there. As for selling BTC, I remember when pulling out of Bitcoin was announced, and it caused a decrease of the price. If something like that happened again, something involving around 1-2 billions of dollars worth of BTC, I'd expect a 15-20% price drop at most. But eventually, it would go back up anyway, so it's not a huge deal.

Is $1000 per capita not a lot, though? It's 7.5% of the total crypto market capitalization (if we take the total marketcap from a website like Coingecko). I think it's a very significant amount if it's actually true, but I have no idea how this could be calculated because I don't think Russians would actively report their crypto holdings to their government which is not very crypto-friendly and where cryptos are sort of in the gray area. By the way, about the $1000 per capita: if we divide the total marketcap by the total population of Earth, the number is $220 per capita. So the number for Russia is significantly above that.

What I like is how it's local legislation, so even people living in the US can avoid issues if they're in a different state. As for the language use and embracing cryptos, I think it really depends on the regulation. Grey area is fine for small users but can be a big issue for some businesses and some activities. Some want to be sure what they're doing is fully legal, so if there's no clear legislation, they might not enter that market. So regulations can be good. Of course, they'd likely mean taxes, but I think taxation of cryptos is already a thing, and these regulations might just help clarify some things and prepare the necessary infrastructure. Regulations can be restrictive, but they can also be friendly. So I believe that we'll be able to judge the California case when particular details of the bill become known.

I think I've also heard of using satellites for BTC, without using the Internet. So I believe that, at least hypothetically, the Internet isn't necessary. That being said, if we're talking not about a personal situation of not having the Internet but having something else and urgently needing to perform a transaction, but about something more devastating like a sort of war that would destroy major Internet infrastructure and people would have much bigger concerns than restoring it, I think BTC would effectively become useless, but so will every digital means of sending anything. I don't think that'll happen, though, and the Internet is reliable enough globally.

Analysis by halving is popular, but I don't think it's well-grounded on evidence. Sometimes it takes many months or even a year between halving and the price going up, and there's no real way to prove that halving had anything to do with the bull run after such significant time passes. I know at least one reputable person that believes halving doesn't have much impact on the price: Andreas Antonopoulos. I tend to agree with that. Correlation doesn't mean causation. As for the future, I think Bitcoin is likely to continue rising because the interest to it isn't fading, and because it has been going on for all its history. There can be setbacks, but the overall upward tendency seems to persist.

This isn't possible, that is correct. If it were, it would mean that there's a risk of the money in one's wallet, and it would defeat the whole point of the security that cryptography provides. It's not impossible in principle, though, right? It's just that the current technologies don't have enough computing power to make the calculations in any reasonable amount of time. But that's why some are afraid of quantum computers, and there were tons of discussions on how that can be the end of cryptos. Still, though, it has to be a major breakthrough in quantum computer to make that big of a difference that private keys can be figured out. And it's not clear if it's a matter of time or if it's going to ever happen (kind of like with people travelling to other planets).

Given that inflation seems very bad in Argentina (40-50% yearly lately), it's great that Bitcoin will be available for purchase and that it's a bank that's allowing that. I think it's in countries like that where fiat is clearly not doing well that Bitcoin can look especially attractive. Bitcoin can go 50% down, sure, but it's not very likely to happen, certainly not every year. And if your local fiat is very likely to go 50% down in a year, then Bitcoin isn't that volatile. Also, Bitcoin actually tends to grow over the years, so the risk might be worth it, as there's no way that local fiat will stop losing value, the question is only about how much value it'll lose. I don't think it's a bad thing that a bank is offering crypto purchases, but of course it's up to people to decide if this is how they want to buy and store their coins.

I agree that there's more adoption, and some things happen in that area every now and then. A university accepting tuition fees in BTC isn't new at all, though, as was mentioned by btc_angela. So another university doing that is good, but not a huge change. Overall, the rate at which Bitcoin is gaining momentum is quite slow for global adoption, IMO. And when I say 'global adoption', I mean adoption on the level of smartphones, for example. A business or a university doing their part is good, but these are still baby steps.