Pensions come from a state fund in my country, and there's a part of taxes that goes towards the fund. But as our Minister of Finance said recently, anyone younger than 40 in 2021 cannot even hope to get this pension because the nation's getting older and the fund can barely pay the benefits to people who are already entitled. So instead, our country will be moving towards state-owned and private pension funds that invest money into things. AFAIK, pension funds usually aren't allowed to make investments that aren't deemed low-risk, and it's not the first time I see a pension fund investing some money into Bitcoin. So I suppose it means Bitcoin isn't considered a high-risk investment, which is good news.

Making my second prediction:
EUR 59,000
kryptonomous

I don't see any usefulness in Shiba Inu, and even Doge is way better because it's old and has been used for gambling for years. But I was clearly wrong before about the marketcap potential of Shiba, as I never thought it would get this close to Dogecoin. I treated it as a joke of a joke, something that cannot get as much hype as Dogecoin, but here we are with Shiba being #11... So while I don't think it's a reasonably good investment because there's nothing but hype to it, it is a way towards profit if one's willing to risk it, and maybe it will surpass Doge after all.

I'm not from the US, so I haven't heard of the company before, but then I read it's the largest cinema chain in the world, so this is great news! Recognizing Bitcoin as a good investment is one thing, but recognizing it as payment is another. Then again, for now they only accept cryptos via PayPal, so it's not really a full support of cryptocurrencies yet. Perhaps it's only step one, though, and if enough people show interest, they'll introduce a crypto payment processor at some point.
Since PayPal works in a very limited way in my country and thus isn't popular here, I've been meaning to ask: PayPal allows crypto payments in the US, so how does it really work? Can you pay with cryptos via PayPal at any store that accepts PayPal or does the store has to support crypto payments specifically? I guess the answer to this question means a lot to assessing how significant the AMC move is (and if there were any move at all).

This makes sense to me, but the video linked by Japinat seems to suggest otherwise because there it shows a person being able to select a wide range of trading pairs, and claiming that it's Binance spot exchange, accessed via Safepal, not Binance Dex. I don't know if it's legit, and I'm not going to check it, though. Even if it is a workaround that still works, Binance probably will treat using it as a violation of the ToS because they've clearly made verification obligatory for trading on their exchange. That could result in the account being blocked, and I'm not sure if they'll bother to return the money.
I think it's best to make a choice here: if you want to trade on Binance, complete verification. If your privacy's more important to you, withdraw your coins from Binance and choose a different exchange for trading.

There've been a few threads here about the Swedish proposal already, but the focus is a bit different in yours, so I guess it's fair. I don't think that mining is a weakness of Bitcoin. Firstly, as you've said, if the energy comes from renewable sources, it's not a problem. Secondly, mining has a great save: adjustment of the difficulty rate. So even if the EU or some other authority bans mining on their territory, there will always be some miners elsewhere, and so the party will continue, so to speak. As for ASIC resistance, can this truly be done for Bitcoin? And also, what will the repercussions be? People moving to mine Bitcoin on graphic cards, which are already impossible to get because people mine Ethereum on them? Also, the electricity bills will probably give miners away if mining's banned, and many simply won't risk breaking the law.

40' 1-1 draw

It's still great if they actually give the money to the victims. Is it possible to identify them and to ensure that people aren't lying they had money there only to get some BTC for free? Also, what they'll give back will be nowhere near if we consider the amount of Bitcoins, but at the time they were stolen, they were worth $450 million, whereas now there are $10 billion worth of BTC. So at least they could give people their dollar equivalent back or possibly 10 times more than that (or even 20x if they indeed spend most money on reimbursements like fuilpro quoted they plan to do). That's still pretty amazing, isn't it? Losing money years ago, and getting 20 times more than you invested, I mean.
I still don't believe that's how it will play out, but let's hope so.
As for the price, I don't think there'll be a big dump because giving money in bitcoins back to the victims or selling bitcoins via OTC deals won't make an impact.

I think it's very possible and quite often the case that stupid bosses have smart people working for them and ensuing they get their profits. It's not always this way, as of course there are some people in business who have a very good education and expertise in some areas. But in my country, people who run big companies (both state-owned and private ones) are frequently college dropouts or those who got their diplomas illegally, and these people are often far from smart or skilled. But of course, they need skilled managers who will actually run the companies. I think it's a matter of the level of corruption.
At least, there are areas where you must be very skilled to succeed, and blockchain development is one of them. You can pretend you know how to run a fashion journal or a gas company, but it's harder to pretend you know what scripts mean and how they work.

I come from a culture where credits aren't considered a normal thing. You're expected to spend what you have or borrow from friends if you really need the money. If you want something you can't afford, you save money till you can buy it, rather than take a loan. I mean, there are people here who use credit cards, but it isn't very common, and having a debt is considered terrible rather than a part of normal life as I assume it is in the US. So while banks offered me some credit limit, I never use it. I don't want to be in debt, and I do the best I can with the money I own. In my country, we also have these microcredits which are very easy to get, but then the interest rate is absolutely crazy there (easily reaching 10x the amount you borrowed if you're late with payments), and so are collectors that come after you if you fail to pay them everything they say you're supposed to pay.

They already have the USD, so why would they need USDT? They have a stable fiat (as stable as it gets, anyway), so what's the point of introducing a stable coin? Clearly, that's not what they were going for. They decided to go for Bitcoin because it raises attention and makes them crypto-friendly. That means (potentially) businesses moving there, and this means new jobs and revenue. Stablecoins would never do that. Also, it seems that they managed to adopt the Lightning network and show that it's a viable solution to use Bitcoin as payment. It's a risky experiment, but it might just bring the boost they so desperately need.

I'm sure many won't support this view, but I actually thought about it once. If an exchange is highly reputable, the money might be safer there. For instance, Binance was hacked, but it gave all the stolen money back to customers. If you somehow have your wallet compromised, nobody will do that. But if you mean messing up your cold storage in the sense of accidentally putting it in water or anything, it won't kill your money. As long as you have your passphrase, you can recover the money. If you mean losing your passphrase, it's a different thing, but you can store it in multiple places to ensure that you don't lose it. Also, while Binance has shown that it returns money to customers, they also imposed KYC now, and who knows what else they'll require over the years. So it's not like it's without its huge disadvantages. Not to mention that they might perform an exit scam or be terribly hacked at some point after all.

The harsh truth is that most people don't care about privacy. They are okay with giving various kinds of data to the government, banks, and even private companies, as long as they get what they are used to in return. People also don't like responsibility and change. If you store your money in a bank account, you feel like it's their responsibility to keep it safe for you (although of course they don't literally have it there, but that's a different problem). Also, people are used to fiat with its very slow-changing value. Cryptos require you to be responsible for your money's safety, and the volatility can be very high. Banks aren't going away. Some will keep focusing on fiat, others try to offer crypto services as well. Adoption is nowhere near the level required for such a prediction to be reasonable.

I don't think what the world needs is chaos. We already have too much of it with rising tensions, covid, and climate change. It's also true that fiat brings chaos because printing money in whatever amount you can get away with printing does not sound like a stable and safe solution. Bitcoin brings transparency and fairness. There's no way to bribe someone and make the price temporarily go up or down. Transactions are publicly available for anyone who's willing to investigate. Everyone can participate in both production and usage of Bitcoin (at least, hypothetically). There are big problems Bitcoin faces, but bringing chaos is not one of them.

Freezing the account is one thing, but do exchanges really confiscate the money? I haven't used mixers, but my understanding is that if there's something an exchange doesn't like, it usually asks for some additional information to be submitted (KYC of some sort). Can they really just take the money because their algorithms flag something as suspicious? I don't mean whether they are able to do that because of course they are. I'm asking if reputable exchanges actually do that in practice, rather than temporarily freeze the money and ask for some documents.

What do they mean exactly by other methods of mining that could be used for Bitcoin? Do they really try to say that Bitcoin can turn to PoS or something? I mean, it's definitely not going to happen. Also, how about their ban coal mining in the EU, offer incentives for electric cars and higher prices for traditional ones? I truly think that banning crypto mining isn't the way. Energy consumption will increase, so the only way forward is to ensure that this energy is as clean as possible. Also, since climate change is a global issue, they should work more on pressing the US and China to do better. If the EU becomes very eco-friendly, but China and the US keep living as they do now, it's not going to help.

EUR 60,000
kryptonomous

I think the price is going up too fast without proper periods of correction, and it's fueled by FOMO and media hype. That doesn't look good, and I believe it'll be natural for the price to crash and stay crashed for at least half a year. It can't just keep going up. At least, that's not what happened with Bitcoin before. I'm not sure about the long-term bear market... On the one hand, Bitcoin recovered from the 2018 crash, and this should be reassuring to investors (back in 2018 many thought it will never recover). On the other hand, the problem might be that once Bitcoin reaches a certain price like $100k, major investors might cash out and simply not care about Bitcoin anymore because they've reached their goals.

I don't want to do business because I've heard too much negative stuff about it growing up and because being rich is not my purpose. I'm more of a job person, but I diversify my jobs, so that I can quit if I don't like the environment. Also, my main life path is that of an academic career, so business is simply not of interest to me here. That being said, I'm considering becoming self-employed as a teacher and a translator. In my country, the environment for doing business is pretty bad: those who are in business say it's impossible to build it without bribes and other illegal things. There's also a very high risk that if you do something smart, your competitors will literally destroy you and might physically deal with you. Finally, I don't like capitalism, and the idea of becoming the person who is benefiting most from this system is uncomfortable to me.

I'm not sure that investing at ATH is 'playing safe'. It's just a FOMO train, and I don't think Bitcoin can keep going without ever crashing. Once it does, these newcomers that poured so much money at such a high price point will be very disappointed and probably lose a lot because of engaging in panic selling and not willing to wait for what can be years before the next bull market. Maybe he invested a while ago, and then it's a different story, but buying when the price is at its highest is never safe. I hope Bitcoin doesn't crash, and they (people like Tim Cook) don't start talking trash and lobbying anti-crypto legislation because of the bad timing of the investment.