I think something personal would be nice for a day like this. Like, perhaps, making your own postcard, and writing the passphrase to a Bitcoin wallet with some money in it? A simple idea is to write the words from the passphrase in the shape of a heart. It's something you can easily do in Word using space (or tabs), or you could write it with a pen yourself (if you have a fairly good handwriting). Come to think of it, you don't even need to make your own postcard. You can buy one of those that have plenty of empty room for you to write your own text, and you can print out or write a heart-shaped passphrase onto it.

The website looks nice and simple, although I'd make the right and left margins bigger. A thing I'm missing here is customizable price charts (setting a specific time frame that I want, not just looking at 1 year, 6 months and other specific points).
 Also, while I get that coinmarketcap might be problematic for some because there's a conflict of interest (it's owned by Binance), there's a great alternative that I've been using for a while now (Coingecko https://www.coingecko.com/). What makes your website different and why should it become more popular than Coinmarketcap or Coingecko? And information about the charts should be available because the prices are somewhere in between coinmarketcap and coingecko, and I'm just wondering how they're being calculated.

I think that making such conclusions requires a lot of research and cannot be determined immediately (unless someone already did the research and one can simply refer to it). A quick search shows that such research hasn't really been conducted. So now to the reasons why it's not so simple to determine the answer right away:
1. There are countries that do well economically even though they aren't really into Bitcoin (like China).
2. What counts as approving a currency? It is only legal tender, or is it regulating it in any way? The US is doing well, and cryptos are legal there, but the legislation isn't crypto-friendly, considering the sell tax.
3. If a country is doing well and it's Bitcoin friendly, it doesn't mean that there's a causal relationship between the two. Switzerland is considered crypto-friendly, and it is doing well economically, but are these two really connected? Probably not, since Switzerland has been an economically strong country for a while, well before Bitcoin.

PayPal can do a lot, and many centralized companies do the same, but Bitcoin's a solution only if it's used properly, storing one's own private key and avoiding centralized services like custodial wallets, crypto exchanges etc. In fact, PayPal itself offering storing Bitcoin in the US if I'm not mistaken, so people can use it and store it this way, not really noticing the difference. And, unfortunately, I think mass adoption of cryptos is going to rely on centralization. It'll rely on custodial wallets, like in El Salvador; on big exchanges forcing KYC and reserving many rights, like Binance; using centralized payment systems, like Bitpay. Having something under one's own control and thus one's own responsibility isn't for everyone.

I never access my BTC from my phone, but I do use online banking, so essentially I'm also at risk (online banking has a password protection, but I use the same for my BTC). The article doesn't say how it was with the phone. Perhaps the wallet was 'protected' by fingerprint, which could easily be done using an unconscious father? Or maybe he knew the password? Or do people store BTC in such quantities in a way that allowing accessing it simply by going to the wallet's app?
Well, the man didn't trust his son for a good reason: his son's a drug addict and thus cannot control his financial behavior.

While it's very popular to generalize the whole continent of Africa and talk about it as if it were a country, I think it's a misleading and unhelpful strategy. Imagine talking about 'cryptocurrency in Eurasia', for example, which is comprised of many nations and regional powers with their own crypto policies that can differ from friendly to hostile and everything in between.
As for the idea that money isn't traditional in Africa but imported with colonisation, this claim caught my attention, so I fact-checked it. And, apparently, it's incorrect, and here it's said that
As for the Internet access, it's a huge obstacle on the way toward crypto adoption, but it's again different in different areas and countries. Nigeria has Internet penetration of 50% which is high enough for significant crypto adoption. Improving the penetration here and in other regions in crucial to ensure that there's at least a possibility of crypto adoption. Then, crypto adoption can create new jobs and some influx of money from investments.

It's just a proposal, so maybe it won't be like this, but India hasn't been crypto-friendly for a while. A 30% tax is very high, and if it also applies to selling and transferring, it basically makes everyday use of Bitcoin impossible. Taxes should be reasonable and progressive, starting at a very low rate. And transfers shouldn't be taxed at all, and neither should small capital gains be taxed. I hope they'll come up with something better, though. Something that motivates people to pay taxes and use cryptos. Because bad regulations tend to motivate people to stay in the shadows, simply, so the state doesn't get much in taxes.

I'm not a vaccine opposer, and given that the anti-vaccination movement isn't huge in Canada (it's much bigger in my country), I think that GoFundMe is simply blocking the funds because of not liking the cause. And if anti-vaccination movement focuses on getting funds in Bitcoin, it will show that Bitcoin can't be censored similarly (at least, not if it's just a Bitcoin address posted directly), but it will also be a blow to Bitcoin's reputation given that vaccines are widely accepted and supported in developed countries. Also, they'd probably get way less money this way because:

• most people still don't use Bitcoin
• those who use Bitcoin know how popular Bitcoin scams are and would be wary of donating Bitcoin
• there still remains a problem of using this money which might require selling of fiat, and at that point the censorship can return

I think it was completely expected. El Salvador chose to adopt Bitcoin against the recommendation of the IMF, so it's not surprising that they won't listen to them now. What is also great from El Salvador is that, while they're not in a good place economically, they are not dependent on loans from the IMF. In my country, the IMF has a great leverage because of the loans we keep taking and the money we already owe, so it could stop crypto adoption. But in El Salvador, they don't have much to be afraid of. So, answering the question of it affecting the economy, I think the impact is going to be very small, unless the IMF figures out how to pressure someone else who does have strong ties with El Salvador and has more leverage.

I think that moving towards a world where people work because they want to, not because they need it to survive, is the future. It can be achieved by introducing the universal basic income, and this is something that he can move toward by replacing many jobs currently done by people with machines. Maintaining equipment is less expensive than paying salaries, and the leftover money can be spent on universal basic income. Some experiments with universal basic income were already conducted, and another trend is reducing work time from a 40-hour week to, say, a 30-hour week.
It's reasonable that people are protesting against unfair working conditions, but also, more radically, against the whole idea that you have to work to ensure your survival. And it is true that we're living in the world of overproduction, so producing less and thus working less is also perfectly reasonable.

Okay, so first of all, from what I read and others also pointed it out, we're talking about less than 300 accounts being frozen. While hypothetically alarming because they can freeze more, it's such a small amount that I think it's reasonable to assume that they weren't restricted without any reasons, and there were indeed some suspicious activities on these accounts, or they didn't comply with the current terms of using Binance. Binance isn't interested in losing customers, so they wouldn't block accounts because they simply feel like it. But they do take legislations very seriously and try to comply the best they can, so the authorities don't shut them down.

I hate when people do things like sneaking in short but radical clauses into legislation. It's such an unfair thing to do because the MPs can't always read everything and keep track of small changes. As for this particular power, being given by striking out some things about imposing regulation, giving one person a lot of power without checks and balances in place isn't the right thing to do.
As for the liquidity matter pointed out by Darker45, it is a vague enough phrase that at least allows restricting the exchange from maintaining the useful infrastructure for trading.

The levels of inflation of the USD and EUR might be above those that are expected and considered desirable, but they are nowhere near the level that could cause enough panic for people to look for alternatives. And the current low price is definitely not helping people to see Bitcoin as trustworthy: it is easy to imagine a potential line of thinking by a person who isn't a crypto enthusiast: the USD and EUR are losing some value, but Bitcoin's losing way more, so fiat is still a better option. I'm not surprised or disturbed by the current price. I think it will reach $75k in 2022 or 2023, but not due to people running away from inflation of fiat currencies.

Calling for regulation instead of restriction is a simple choice because regulation would mean at least some influx of money for the state, and given that crypto mining isn't anything morally questionable (unless one believes it's very harmful for ecology, but Russia's not the sort of country that takes ecology seriously anyway), it's clearly a win to legalize cryptos and operations with it.
As for Zimbabwe and tax collection, I think if taxes are applicable, it already means that cryptos are legalized in some way there. I only hope taxes will be reasonable because otherwise people will simply look for ways of avoiding paying them.

If the Constitution doesn't allow creating legal tender, it means that Arizona can't make their own Arizonacoin and declare is legal tender. But since it wasn't this state that created Bitcoin, I don't think this restriction applies in this case. It might still be a federal matter, of course, but not due to the restriction of creating legal tender. After all, it doesn't say that individual states aren't allowed to recognize any currencies as legal tender. I'm not very optimistic about the bill passing because it's a very big thing for a state to decide, but it probably won't be overruled on the basis of that clause of the Constitution.

In my country, not everything is shared 50/50 when filing for a divorce. In fact, any personal earnings remain personal, and any property bought by one person is considered personal as well. Only that which qualifies as property that was acquired in marriage with common effort is in question during a divorce. The op also mentions that Bitcoin is also shared, and questions can be asked about it in court, so they'd have to hide it if they don't want it to be shared, and false statements in court is an offense. So I don't think Bitcoin is being embraced over fears of divorces.

I think that the general ideas of the Metaverse are sound, and having a unified virtual space for various experiences could be a good thing. But for that to be actually nice and useful, it should be a decentralized system, not something built by Facebook Meta or Microsoft. If you're talking about VR, it's actually pretty good and allows experiencing things you're not going to experience otherwise (walking around bizarre worlds of video games, flying a helicopter and things like that).
As for NFTs, I don't hate the idea of them, but I think there's way too much hype over them, and they are not very useful for anything apart from supporting those who create art.

12) Jack Hermansson         
11) Nick Maximov       
10) Shavkat Rakhmanov                   
9) Tresean Gore         
8 ) Steven Peterson
7) John Castaneda       
6) Hakeem Dawodu         
5) Chidi Njokuani   
4) Julija Stoliarenko     
3) Jailton Almeida
2) Phillip Rowe               
1) Denys Bondar

Game 1:  18' SPFC 1-0

I believe IMF was against El Salvador adopting Bitcoin before and refused to help El Salvador with that. So nothing really surprising is happening here, and I don't think it'll change El Salvador government's policy because they knew the IMF was against it and adopted it anyway. I also think that IMF would be better off working on accepting Bitcoin into their system, treating it as another form of money they can work with. In the meantime, El Salvador has chosen its path, and it seems that they've been withdrawing from their reliance on loans from them for years and are currently not dependent on them. So IMF doesn't have much leverage here.