Uhm, it's not a scam, fraud, or anything like that? It's simply a service that they offer you so that you're able to invest in something that could idk, depends really on what it is for. I mean I'd reckon the only justifiable reason to use a credit card is to invest something you don't have to make your work easier, e.g. a laptop, monthly fees for applications, etc. Credit cards ain't rocket science, you just need to manage it with the proper mindset. Credit cards are a thing for a reason, it's completely legal and very user friendly if, IF, used properly imo.

erm I don't think it's possible? If the casinos was officially licensed then it may be possible to appeal to whoever hosts the license, but if it wasn't, or rather the site was made to look like it was licensed but wasn't really one, then you've been completely fooled. I'm pretty sure it would be close to impossible to find the people behind the scam since it's online, if it was offline then there may be a chance but online? Close to zero imo. Unless they somehow left tracks that could lead to them. You can also ask a lawyer if you think you're chances are pretty good in finding the one at fault.

Hmm, n0tail might have a hard time finding, or at least, adjusting to a new team. His OG team could be said to be one of a kind after all. Ceb might just go continue into coaching or heck, even a caster, like please, we need more casters who know actual stuff in the game, and Ceb, when he was still an analyst, was one of the times I listened to them explaining the game very much. Topson though might not go for retirement straight away and instead opt for a break, maybe a year or two. We can probably then discover what he would go for after that.

I wanna cheer for Murata but GGG seems like he still has something left in his tank that can take Murata on. Not that I'm talking bad about Murata, he still has a lot of fight in him but comparing him with GGG, the latter has a higher chance of feating him imo. Still, if GGG flunks this, he basically lost all rights for a rematch with Murata. I worry though since his age might catch up even before the rematch happens and we might miss it because of that. Guess this match will say whatever is left of GGG.

Well, it isn't odd, an online casino would still need a license from the higher-ups even if it was fully online, so I guess this could also work as one as long as they add it in the contract that they signed (that, or it's a sub license of sorts I guess?). Plus a crypto casino is still something out of the way ig since it's a casino under a country. Allowing it to operate as a crypto casino could be seen as them accepting crypto, but that would also require them to accommodate regulations for crypto in general, and not only in casinos, so it isn't that odd.

Well, it's something that I've always favored and said, the government should instead regulate instead of removing or banning an industry, whatever that industry may be. It's much better in terms of handling what's happening in that certain industry with regards to the laws that surround it as well as being able to see what exactly is happening inside it. Unlike completely removing it, wherein that case, they'd simply be completely blind whenever illegal company props that up, they'd basically have no idea what to do. Putting something where you can see and guard it is much better than removing it out of your sight, no matter how unpleasant.

Well if the lawsuit actually goes through then this could damage the image of the casino, but only IF it could. I'd reckon the casino would do some PR for this though since they wouldn't want to exactly let this explode out of proportion, touching upon gambling addiction is a sensitive subject for everyone after all, especially since they themselves are a gambling casino. Still it would leave a permanent mark on their names though, they probably need to do some stuff to appease those that were involved as well as the higher ups.

The gambling part of Meta would naturally be supervised and restricted though? It wouldn't actually be odd for Meta to perform strict KYC procedures if they were going to implement it, especially if it was included with their facebook counterpart and not separated, since that would make it more susceptible to be visited by most people whether they be of legal age or not. It should rather be obvious for them really, since the social media Facebook is used by a wide majority of audience from all sorts of ages after all.

Staking is a way to passively earn so I guess it's okay, though do consider the prospects of the project so that what you're staking actually has worth and would end up in profit after a period of time. It wouldn't be the best option for passive earning if you were losing money over time instead of earning in the long term after all. Holding assets in your wallet is in a way still passive earning, hodling is still an idea that people would still consider, especially if the coin is something that grows pretty well over time.

I highly doubt it. Banks do take control of our funds however we technically allow them to do so when we give it to them for safe keeping. Plus, banks being gone is like removing the core of a working centralized system that the majority of the users, institutions, and companies use. Not to mention that banks offer convenience, something that most people would gladly take even if it means that their funds are being temporarily controlled by banks. Not anyone has the time, nor the expertise to become their own bank after all.

Well if we take into account what Covid did, then it definitely brought a different change since well, it's something not seen in the normal 4 year cycle, or rather actually isn't normally seen. It's influence not only reached towards the price crash when the lockdowns started but also till this date where minor influences piled up to become what it is today. No one could say really, but who knows, some people say that Covid did accelerate the growth due to that pause in the normal cycle we had. Still, I don't think we'd reach a bear market that big compared to the past, the community is pretty big compared to what it was before after all.

Well, that's the thing, you don't. Trading would always, always involve losing money, it isn't a one-sided thing where you just keep on earning money EVEN if you did your research, did a lot of stuff,  and whatnot. Understanding the market means acknowledging that fact imo. The right time is always there imo, just that other traders influence that so-called "right time" so even if you think it's right, it might just be made wrong by someone else trading, making it no tthe right one.

Glad that at the very least, there's some acknowledgment ongoing on how the sports betting scene is actually real, and shouldn't be stopped since it's a rather positive thing both for its users and for those who want to profit out of it. Plus, with them doing this, they can at the very least better control the inner workings of what is happening, instead of letting it work illegally and them having no clue about it. Plus, it's a bigstep since it could open up for other opportunities overseas, hopefully anyway.

They each have their own pros and cons though. Crypto has volatility which is both imo, if you can take advantage of it you can pretty much profit big in just one single trade, but the opposite could also be the same. I guess Forex is just more stable when compared to crypto, though said stability is probably also one of the factors that make it difficult to actually do it. Not to mention that just comparing the possible profits one could gain (and lose) on both sides, crypto would naturally stand out. Especially since bull markets in crypto happen, which makes it easy to profit.

Well, that's up to them to answer tbh. The rule itself isn't actually a problem, but probably not updating you was the problem. It was kind of weird since money was involved in this case, and that it's a rather permanent action, rather than a temporary one where you can still get it back. Not reading the ToS was probably your fault, but reminding their users of their ToS should be their responsibility no? I guess both sides are at fault here but I reckon it doesn't warrant a direct action like what they did. Also I highly doubt it's an issue for most gamblers, they're pretty much playing all the time after all, unlike your case I guess.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be odd If they did so I suppose. It is still a method for their company to earn money after all, and since they are rebranding, touching upon some industries that they originally didn't seem like a plan. After all, as others have said, Facebook's rebranding is currently a mess and is pretty much only a means for them to redirect about the issue of their data getting breached. Plus, everything in the scene is pretty much growing, gambling isn't alone with that so it's a pretty good opportunity to enter it imo.

Well if you actually consider starting up trading, really, consider yourself as broke unless you pull out whatever profits you've already made. As they say, trade only whatever you can actually afford to lose, and not what you can't. After all, it only takes a moment for you to lose all the funds that you've entered into the market. It also especially helps with how you value money, if you're able to decisively throw away money at the idea of earning more, trading is pretty much for you.

It depends on what YOU can do. As mk4 said, Option 1 is viable only if you know what you're doing (and you have the time to do so). The market always experiences those dips that traders could take advantage of so I don't think you'd lose out, honestly I'd expect you to profit more if you're able to ride on those dips (big IF). If you can't, or have no confidence in doing so, just hodl tbh. You can just literally leave it there and go on with your life, ofc, expecting less profits than option 1.

Slow and steady wins the race. I wouldn't mind it really if $100k was reached by the end of the year, like at the last few weeks or so maybe? Just to make sure that you know, it isn't similar to the bubble of 2017,2018. I hope that the rise could actually let Bitcoin stay at that price or at least close to it for the rest of next year. It'd be much safer for the market scene if the price rise had at least some foundation right? Though ig investors would like it more if the market went crazy, more opportunities for them I suppose.

Well, there would inevitably rules around the crypto scene that the higher-ups would put out just to ensure that they could at least exhibit some control I think. Ofc, at it's core, the concept of Bitcoin won't ever be controlled or changed, but there could be rules around it such as being used only for specific transactions and whatnot to limit what users could do with it. There's also the idea of linking identities to wallets, hence KYC's (which defeats the point of pseudo-anonymity imo, but it is what it is) and there'd probably be more that would be placed to regulate its usage to avoid scams and the like so that other people wouldn't exactly be afraid of using it.