Given that this country became one of the major centers of crypto mining, following China's restrictions, it does have significant impact on the market now. I still don't believe that hash rate has a direct impact on the price, but big disruptions to mining which obviously occurred with the Internet being shut down are leading people to panic, and that leads to the price decreasing. Unfortunately, it seems that the Internet is still down, even though I thought the protests were dealt with when foreign military operations started. I think that eventually the Internet will be back, and Bitcoin will recover regardless of when it happens because the mining difficulty will simply adjust and people will calm down.

I thought 5% was considered a good inflation rate per year, but 5% in a month sounds like way too much, even for those who argue that some inflation is good to motivate people to spend money rather than hold it. Then again, Bitcoin can easily lose or gain 5% in a matter of a few days, so fiat is still way  more stable than cryptos. That being said, Bitcoin corrects itself eventually and grows in value, whereas fiat is meant to lose some value, and at times like this it simply loses more than anticipated. I think they'll be able to fix this next year, though, especially since everyone's used to the pandemic now, and fewer restrictions are being introduced even during major outbreaks.

You have to choose a well-known coin with considerable market capitalization for staking to avoid being scammed. You should also make sure you're using a reputable wallet that, while supporting staking, is not going to rob you. I think that not losing your coins is the main concern with staking. But I'd also consider the viability of staking. Given how volatile cryptos are, it seems to me that staking doesn't make much sense. The added value you might get from coins is only a matter of a swing of the market and the prices changing. So I think it's better to follow the prices rather than engage in staking.

I know people who are into LEGO sets, and those are quite expensive, but 11% returns annually don't sound too impressive when compared with Bitcoin. Also, why is the data stopping at 2015? Might it mean that for 6 years the trend hasn't continued? I do support the idea of not throwing away LEGO because it's plastic and throwing it away is wasteful, but what I fear is that people will start buying new ones to simply hodl them. Also, it caught my eye that unopened sets were analyzed, so I don't see how keeping old LEGO sets is supported by this research.

I seriously doubt this is going to happen. If the price goes to even half a million, I can't imagine what it would do to the fees, with people buying more or selling while it lasts. This would bring way more attention to Bitcoin, and thus way more transactions. But I also don't think that being a millionaire is necessary for being rich. In my country, you can buy a flat for $50k, so having, say, around $100k, would make you quite rich. But that would still require the price to go well beyond what I consider reasonable, so I'd say that it's a safe bet that owning 0.01 BTC won't make a person rich. Unless, of course, we consider a very poor economy where people live for $3 per day, so having around $1k is considered being rich.

Let's go through his predictions. It's easy to say that he's right about Bitcoin City and Volcano bonds because they're under his control. So is, I guess, that surprise at the Bitcoin Conference, but he might overestimate its scope and impressiveness. As for the first three things which are out of his control, I think that $100k is a realistic prediction, while 2 countries adopting Bitcoin sounds less likely (unless El Salvador starts showing vast economic improvements fast, and also because I think a move like this usually requires a young dictator to do things fast), and I find Bitcoin being a big matter in the US elections even more unlikely. So far, it wasn't a big issue in the US politics, with few people from both parties caring about changing the existing policies at all.

What caught my eye in the article was debt repayments to China. It's very unfortunate that Sri Lanka fell for Chinese easy-to-get but hard-to-repay credits, and I'm sure that it created additional problems on top of the lack of tourism due to the pandemic. It's sad that 5 years of progress in combatting poverty were countered with a couple of years of the pandemic, and it's terrible that poverty is still a problem in our world of overproduction. I wish there was proper redistribution done, so that food wasn't thrown away in huge quantities in some places while people suffer from malnutrition in others. It's just ridiculous that it's still happening.

In my country, people use our local fiat for everyday life, of course, because it's usually the only currency accepted in shops and other places, but I don't know anyone who actually keeps savings in local fiat. Our inflation rate is at around 8%, and add to that the fact that every 7 years or so something very bad happens and the currency loses value by 2x or so. Cryptos are quite popular in my country because inflation isn't greatly managed, and those who are more traditional simply store savings in EUR or the USD. Given that lira is currently experiencing a 36% inflation rate, I think it's perfectly reasonable that people try to move to other currencies, and Erdogan saying otherwise won't stop them.

Wow, that's a big failure. What's funny, though, is that apparently they didn't fully make up their minds because here's an article from the events that happened later, and Ubisoft is standing by their idea with NFTs, claiming that the company's true goal with this is to show the power of decentralization (and definitely not to get even more money from their customers). As others pointed out, though, the whole thing clearly failed with embarrassingly low sales. I think the main problem is that they're late to the party. If they did it when the NFT craze was starting, it could have worked out differently for them. But now people are tired of hearing about them, as well as of gaming companies finding new ways of milking users.

From what I've read, the Internet connection seems to be the likeliest culprit. Kazakhstan became a huge mining center when China introduced its restrictions, and it's not surprising that something as big as a countrywide Internet shutdown would affect crypto mining operations. However, I think it's not as big of a deal, and I don't understand why the price suffered that much. After all, mining difficulty can correct itself, and it's not a threat to the network. So it's probably just FUD spreading over the news, and perhaps some people fear that mining will become impossible in Kazakhstan if these protests lead to more restrictions and last for a long time.

I looked at his Wikipedia, and I don't think he's the right guy for this. Firstly, there's this section on COVID denial and his great prediction that it will all be over in a few weeks. Unless your friend's also a COVID denier, it can be a major setback (in the line of thinking that if this guy was so wrong about the pandemic, why should he be trusted regarding any other matter). Then there was a SEC settlement, potentially suggesting tax evasion (again, not good for his reputation).
I think a good and reasonable guy for Bitcoin education is Andreas Antonopoulos, just like mk4 suggested. He's genuinely interested in blockchain and Bitcoin, rather than, like Saylor, hunting down whatever brings profits. Also, I don't think he's overly optimistic (at least, I don't think he ever makes predictions about Bitcoin price going up), so it seems that his views are more moderate and are less likely to result in your friend losing money.

Bitcoin's goal is transparency and direct exchange of money, not anonymity. Of course, if people use Bitcoin in order to hide their identity these days, they might be disappointed (although it's worth noting that Bitcoin is still the top choice on the Darknet, apparently, along with Monero).
So Bitcoin does offer some privacy, but of course a private blockchain offers more. That being said, I don't think it's the desire of privacy that gets Bitcoin the majority of its users. Some seek a way of owning some money that no government can control, others merely seek profits, but privacy is only somewhat achievable and desirable when it comes to Bitcoin.

I think that his prediction doesn't qualify as objective (in a sense of disinterested) because he's been bullish about Bitcoin for many years and has held BTC since 2013. He believes in Bitcoin and is interested in it winning over Visa and Mastercard. But at least he's being realistic that it's not going to happen in Western countries in the near future. The developing world has more incentive to experiment in case it improves economic well-being, after all. But Nigeria, specifically, doesn't strike me as a place for such a big change. After all, its government clearly isn't very pro-crypto.

Op still made okay profits, so I think that regretting selling is unnecessary. While hodling longer can bring higher profits, I don't share the overall sentiment of hodling for as long as one can, waiting for the price to get higher and higher. If you don't spend Bitcoin one way or another, those profits you've made are just numbers on the screen that mean nothing. Unless, of course, you give access to someone who will actually spend Bitcoin on goods and services (directly or indirectly). I think having a target is necessary, and so is having plans on how to spend that money.

It's good for Bitcoin publicity, and it's a symbolic act. It's also nice that they're leaving it there for anyone who can get to the Moon to collect it. However, it's not cost-effective at all. It'll cost at least dozens of millions of dollars to fulfil this trip, and Bitcoin's worth only around $50k. When we still have problems here, on Earth, I don't find it wise to make trips to the Moon only for such silly purposes. Also, it'll be in physical form there, which kind of defeats the whole point of Bitcoin because it's in its nature to be digital and people should get used to it.

Game 1:  9' 2-1 Liverpool
Game 2:  9' 0-2 Southampton

Op, nobody can tell you for sure which currency will or won't grow. And if you watch someone who does tell such things, keep in mind that this might simply be a sponsored YouTuber or something like that. Also, if something's relatively new (DeFi, NFT), it doesn't mean it's a better choice and indeed the future of crypto projects. There's hype over this or that trend, but it dies off at some point, and many lose lots of money because of not jumping off the train at the right moment. And then there are top cryptocurrencies with high market capitalization that have been gradually growing for years. I think they are a better investment choice than a new fashionable thing that people might completely forget in a year or two.

Some people invest with short-term profits in mind. They see how volatile Bitcoin is, for example, and focus on those rare occasions when it gains value very fast, and so they buy and wait to sell for profit as soon as possible. Of course, I agree with the op that if investment in the goal, one should have patience and be prepared to invest long-term, but sometimes people just want the profits and are driven by it.
If one wants to have profits on a regular basis with some guarantees, one should get a job rather than invest or start a business.

In my country, insurance isn't a popular thing. We get insurances when we travel abroad because they are sometimes required, but we usually live our lives without medical, property or other insurances. However, there are countries where, for example, the whole medical system is built of insurances. Sometimes it works pretty well (for example, in Germany or Austria), and other times it's terrible (for example, in the US). So I don't have a general attitude towards insurances because I believe it depends a lot on the context. But I don't see how smart contracts can act instead of insurance. If we're talking about ensuring that a buyer-seller transaction goes well, it's possible to use a smart contract to freeze the money temporarily and then pay it out automatically upon a certain event. But insurance isn't about securing funds for everything in advance, it's simply impossible. So in some areas insurance companies are necessary. And if a company is well-reputable, I don't have a problem with it being centralized.

Op, while inflation is usually associated with increasing stocks, it's not always the case. There's a correlation, but it doesn't always work, it seems. For example, the stock market and the economy famously crashed in 2007 and 2008. It's no secret that the US played the key part in it, but if you look at the inflation rate in 2007 and 2008, it was actually quite high.
If you look at, say, S&P 500, the market already crashed pretty hard in 2008, but the inflation rate was still high. Then, of course, it crashed further in 2009, and the inflation rate dropped a lot as well, but there was still a period of time when one didn't go in line with the other.
You are correct, though, that inflation and stocks currently seem synchronized, but it doesn't mean that it's always the case, I think.