It's a good topic, and I'm curious to see what the majority believe. It's true that Bitcoin didn't face a complete economic collapse, but there was something I'd like to use as a base for my prediction: March of 2020, when Covid was declared a pandemic (can't believe there was a time before Covid, to be honest). The stock market (I'm looking at the S&P 500 chart as a reference) went down but started recovering in April, making a full recovery to pre-pandemic value by August of 2020. Bitcoin's behavior was very similar in that case, but while it was the biggest recent crash for the stock market, Bitcoin has had more significant rises and crashes since then. So my guess is that Bitcoin will initially go down along with everything else, but it will start recovering within a couple of months, and will do that faster than the stock market because Bitcoin doesn't really depend on world's economy and because it will probably receive investments from those fleeing the crashing stock market. And then Bitcoin will have its own high and low points, while the world economy simply keeps crawling back up.

You say left-leaning media, but link a source that is a very right-wing populist one? I don't think it's fair, and Tucker, as you can probably see from other posts as well, has a certain reputation. I watched the second half, and there's a short clip from CNBC featuring one woman saying stuff about white supremacy (not even directly linking Bitcoin to white supremacy). By the way, Tucker seems to be getting worse, actually, over time. Last time I watched him about two years ago, he seemed at least lie the kind of guy some reasonable people might like. Now he's even more manipulative, more emotional.
As for the reality, of course there are white supremacists, anti-vaccination leaders, and money launderers who use Bitcoin. But there are also charities, universities, famous companies and people from all parts of the political spectrum using it. I hate it that Tucker's show basically appropriates Bitcoin, but I hope it won't change anyone's mind. Bitcoin is for everyone.

The limit on earning doesn't automatically make it a job, and the way you describe going through adventures and doing some tasks as a job-like activity means that many games (even whole types of games, such as platformers) don't qualify as gaming experience for you. As for the limits, I think they should exist for various reasons: so that it's harder to abuse the system, so that nobody is motivated to spend as much time as possible in front of a screen, so that companies don't lose more money than they expect to lose.

CBDCs compete against fiat, in my opinion, because they are both centralized and both aim to be used as a main means of payment in a particular country. While CBDC competing against fiat is not a real thing for now, it does make sense that they might do so in the future, in a certain sense. As for decentralized currencies, they, IMO, aren't threatened by fiat currencies or CDBCs because they indeed have their own niche. But, as some pointed out, there's room for competition because decentralized money (if we view cryptos as money) is an alternative to centralized money. Right now it's also not really a competition because the possibilities of using Bitcoin as payment are very limited, and many view Bitcoin as more of an investment than a form of payment.

The US is a debt-based country, unbelievably so. Young people take big student loans and end up in debt, mortgages are very popular, credit cards are very popular, and taking all sorts of loans and having all sorts of debts is considered normal. The country itself does a similar thing, ending up in more and more debt. But while it's #1 by total external debt in the world, it's not even in top-10 by debt-to-GDP. Also, being the biggest superpower and economy in the world, the US can pretty much heavily dictate its own rules, and nobody would be able to actually pressure it to pay up. So while it's a lot, and it increased by so much over the last couple of years, I'm not sure it'll have any serious implications for the US economy. At least, not in the near future. But yeah, it will probably become a load on the taxpayers, once again, and of course the most vulnerable will suffer most, while insanely rich will keep living off their wealth without selling stocks and thus not really paying taxes.

The thread is new, but is the news new as well? Can anyone link a source for it, in that case? Because from what I've googled, there's no recent news (nothing this month) about FED tightening its policy, so I'm wondering if we're discussing anything in particular. If it's about the talks of the need to tighten the policy that happened in December (the IMF recommended it), and in January (the Fed Chair said the economy's in need of it), then it's about limiting the fiat supply to combat inflation. It's a fiat matter, aimed at stabilising the USD. I don't see why it should have any impact on the crypto market, to be honest. So I'd choose option 4 from the op.

I don't understand why countries can't just own it when they're lucky to have many miners, and provide a reasonable regulatory framework for them. In my country, the electricity cost depends highly on how much electricity is being used (it's one sum per Kwh if the totall is up to 100, another if it's up to something bigger, and so on), and it's a pretty fair system because it doesn't target any activity specifically but focuses on what matters: consumption of electricity.
As for the idea of taxing GPUs, I see a big problem here: how can they know if the GPU's bought for mining or for a custom PC? This could lead to prices going even higher than they already are, in this crazy period of shortages. As for taxes, why not simply tax miners with income tax, just like any other income would be taxed? They can declare monthly income and pay a certain percentage of it in taxes. As for removing the VAT exemption, that seems reasonable to me because I don't see why it's exempt in the first place. In any case, it's just a proposal by one important person; it doesn't mean it'll actually be adopted.

15) Israel Adesanya
14) Derrick Lewis
13) Jared Cannonier
12) Kyler Phillips
11) Nasrat Haqparast
10) Andrei Arlovski
9) Roxanne Modafferi
8 ) Alex Perez
7) William Knight
6) Ronnie Lawrence
5) Renato Moicano
4) Carlos Ulberg
3) A.J. Dobson
2) Sergey Morozov
1) Jeremiah Wells

Now that some time has passed, it's easy to see that Woo was wrong about the potential stability that high-stake investors would bring to the market. Big investors already entered the market, and yet we see the price being less than $45k. If they didn't prevent the drop, why would they be capable of bringing Bitcoin to a new level?
I do believe that $100k is a very reasonable prediction (by the end of 2022, though, not by June) because it's less than 2x from Bitcoin's previous ATH, and the year has only started. I just don't think this can be explained by a new kind of investors who possess a lot of money.

It's interesting to see how NFTs are now also a part of money laundering schemes (I've seen them being a result of stolen intellectual property before, but not used for money laundering), and the story of tracking the lost coins is also worth attention. It's great that they were caught and money was seized because it shows that Bitcoin doesn't prevent the work of law enforcement, and I also liked the part franky1 pointed out about a $500 giftcard to Walmart. I do trust that it was the case because being reckless is what usually get people caught (just recall how Ross Ulbricht was caught, using an email containing his name to tell people about Silk Road on the Internet).

Bitcoin can't free from governments and corporations, but it can provide some financial freedom because it's the sort of money that is not under any government's control, and it can be used without as much oversight as money on bank accounts. And while someone has to be in charge, it doesn't have to be a single person. That's not how democracies work, that's not the most popular contemporary view at all. The community can be in charge, and conflicts can be resolved by negotiations and consensus mechanisms. Bitcoin managed more than a decade without strict leadership, so I see no reason why it can't keep doing that.

Op's using the terms 'globalization' and 'global village' without giving them much thought, even though they have names and conceptual developments behind them. Global village, for example, doesn't really mean there are no restrictions and that literally every human is interconnected (it means that we're way more connected than prior to the Internet, but still). One of the main notions of global village is that we know famous people from other places often better than those who live next door: it's the distortion of perception of space and new communication possibilities that have their own implications. Also, it's far from true that everyone's interconnected: North Korea is basically outside the Internet, China's largely restricting (although not making it impossible to access) it, and global Internet penetration is at 59%. As for industrialization, I find it irrelevant because we're well into post-industrial society where services and information are key components, not factories and production of goods. Bitcoin is, in a way, a global payment agent (not the, just a), but with its current number of users, it's far from being dominant.

Imposing a limitation of crypto transactions and even possession to banks and crypto exchanges licensed in Russia is actually very significant and not pro-crypto. First, it means that hodling your own keys will essentially be illegal because it's not a bank account or a crypto exchange. Second, even doing something like Binance trading's also illegal because there's no way Binance obtained a special Russian license, and I'm sure many popular exchanges won't bother with countries that require special licenses, unless it's a country of huge financial significance (like the US). So even the draft law, which might not actually pass, isn't looking that good, even though it might initially sound bullish.

Some countries do ban mining, and a few big ones can follow, but I find it extremely unrealistic for all countries to do that. Also, even when mining's banned, it doesn't mean it's literally not done in the countries that introduced the bans. It highly depends on how much the laws are being enforced, and some or a lot of underground mining can take place. Moreover, thanks to the adjustments of the difficulty rate, even if a lot of miners suddenly stopped, it would only be a problem for around two weeks, and then it would get back to normal. Of all things that can threaten the future of cryptos, I don't think mining restriction is a big issue.

I'm really glad that a very significant amount of money was recovered, and also the rhetoric of the Deputy Attorney General claiming that this proves that crypto's aren't a safe haven for criminals. Luckily, blockchain does ensure some transparency, and a successful seizure of funds hopefully shows not only that cryptos aren't great for illicit activities, but also that the existing AML measures are enough.
I wonder why the couple would try laundering sooo much money. It's well above securing a lifetime of funds for yourself and even children... A million or two would be enough for that.
Regarding the funds, allegedly, they'll try to return them:

When I started reading the op, I didn't understand what was a big deal because people have been paying with smartphones using NFC for a while on Apple and Android, but then I understood that it's the other way around, and people will be able to accept payments (including crypto payments) onto iPhones. It's great, but it's still something involving cards, so it's only for custodial storing of cryptos, right? Moreover, the article says the process will most likely involve conversion into fiat. So it's not a big adoption point, really, at least not for cryptos. Also, I'm interested in tax implications as it's selling crypto for fiat, which for now calls for a tax report in the US, doesn't it?

The market might be recovering, but regardless of that, good coins always deserve investments. If you're talking about high-cap coins like Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot (and it seems that the op focuses on coins like that), I think now's an okay time to invest because they are simply good projects and have strong support, so even if the market goes further down, waiting it out is an option. Ethereum, for example, is still about 38% down from its ATH, and I find it reasonable to believe that it will at least be able to reach that. Similar things are true about other major coins.

1)  Coin toss?  Tails
2)  Which team will win the coin toss?  LA
3)  Will LA cover the -4.5 point spread?  No
4)  Game Total 48.5?  Over

5)  Matt Stafford to throw an interception?  Yes
6)  Matt Stafford to complete 281.5 passing yards?  Over
7)  Matt Stafford to complete 24.5 passes?  Under

8 ) Joe Burrow to throw an interception?  Yes
9)  Joe Burrow to complete 276.5 passing yards?  Under
10) Joe Burrow to complete 24.5 passes?  Under

11)  Who will have more passing yards?  Matt Stafford
12)  Will either team score 3 straight times?  No
13)  Will there be a Defensive or Special Teams TD scored by either team?  Yes
14)  What will happen 1st in the game?  TD
15)  What will the longest score of the game be?   TD

16)  Odell Beckham Jr. total receiving yards 66.5?  Under
17)  Cooper Kupp total receptions 8.5?  Over
18)  Joe Mixon total rushing yards 64.5?  Under
19)  Ja'Marr Chase total receiving yards 80.5?  Over

20)  Team to score first?   LA
21)  Team to use Coach’s Challenge first?  LA
22)  Team to call timeout first?   CIN
23)  Most penalty yards?  LA
24)  Which team will record the most sacks?  CIN
25)  Team to score last?   CIN

I remember this news, and it's a very valuable lesson for crypto users: no matter how big the market valuation is (or, in case of a crypto, its market capitalization), the price can drop significantly over panic selling, and no amount of institutional investors can fix it. And it happened over something as stupid as lower growth than expected! So it wasn't even anything major, and even the revenue was there. The price hasn't recovered, by the way, and actually continues falling. It's now -32% from a month ago, and -34% from 6 months ago. Bitcoin, in comparison, is doing way better.

Unfortunately, phishing scams are very common with crypto exchanges and wallets, so one just has to be extra careful every time one accesses it. Emails can't be trusted, as often even corporate email impostors are a thing (if the company doesn't enable the necessary security against such attacks). As for phone numbers, somehow they often get known to scammers, and it goes beyond the crypto area (at least, in my country). It's good that the CEO is warning people because they need to be reminded regularly, but doing one's own due diligence is as important as this.