Op, move this thread to the altcoin discussion, please. The question itself is honestly probably not as simple as it sounds. If we're talking about a shitcoin which is barely used, transactions will likely be very fast and cheap because there aren't many of them happening. But it doesn't mean that this blockchain would handle the load that Bitcoin or Ethereum have better than them. Then there are centralization concerns mentioned above. And indeed there are coins based on other technologies. For example, IOTA is based on DAG, which is allegedly much better than Blockchain because it does not have the scalability issue, but it was up until recently very centralized, and I'm not sure people are willing to give it a go anymore, even though I believe it could truly be a good solution for global adoption.

If you're new to all this, why rush with an investment? Isn't it better to research what's available and make an informed decision, thus reducing the risks of it going sideways? There are thousands of projects these days, and it's not easy to wrap one's head around it all. Honestly, I think that the best investment is a safe investment. It won't get you as much profit as a risky NFT or a low market capitalization altcoin, and it will probably require long-term holding, but it's still a good choice. I'm talking about Bitcoin, Ethereum, Polkadot and other similar high-cap and already popular coins.

It's not as big as the name of the thread sounds. If I understood correctly, it's only about Visa cards issued in Britain. Moreover, it's only about credit cards, whereas Visa debit cards are accepted. I also wonder how much is 'too high' in this situation. I always use debit cards, so I don't know the fees on credit cards, and my cards aren't British. Is it about high percentage or high fixed amount per transaction? It's important because answers to these questions can determine if accepting Bitcoin is a viable solution. With Bitcoin fees currently averaging at around $2.5, it's more than I usually have to pay for a fiat transaction fee, for instance.

Not everything failed miserably, actually. eNaira (Nigerian CBDC) seems to be doing well with 500k wallet downloads in 3 weeks since the launch, and IMF agreeing to provide technical support. Then there's also digital yuan from China which hasn't fully launched yet, I believe, but has been tested since April and is about to go live, and it allegedly already has 140 million users.
I don't think CBDC is necessarily a failure, and I don't even mind that some countries are experimenting with them. They are competing with fiat more than with cryptos IMO, and the only thing I do think it deeply wrong is attempting to meet the demand for cryptos with CBDC and ban cryptos in the meantime.

I think it's a very fortunate event, especially due to the naming of the company. If it were something like Coinbase or Binance, it would only promote a particular company, and people who aren't into cryptos might not even know what it means and what business the company's in. But 'crypto.com', while definitely advertising this specific company, also clearly has the name 'crypto' in it, so I think it counts as a general publicity of cryptocurrencies as well. Hopefully, by hearing 'crypto' more, people will be motivated to learn more themselves and then choose the services and providers of services they are interested in themselves.

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

I don't trust small exchanges and don't buy any coin until it's on a big and reputable exchange. I realize this way you lose a potential time of high profits, but you also gain calmness because at least you know you won't be scammed. Also, observing the coin for a while to see if it's gaining attention is a good thing, IMO.
What you can do is read about the exchange, find reviews, and pay special attention to information about the fees they might impose. Also, of course, mind the KYC policy. If an exchange is not huge, but it's relatively popular and there are no scam accusations about it, maybe it's not that risky to try it out.

I'd say from the list of jobs that it's due to Covid-19. Entertainment industry suffered very hard during lockdowns, so many people lost income there. As for government jobs, it might be due to stress associated with working during the pandemic (with people being very unhappy with how everyone does their jobs), and in some countries it might be due to obligatory vaccination for certain jobs, so those who aren't vaccinated are likely to go. Some who can get by without a job for a while might quite because Covid made them realize how fragile human life is and that you should spend more time with the people you love and doing things you want to do.
But I also wonder how representative this info really is and whether it is indeed a tendency in the US or even worldwide that people quite job and there are more offers than applicants.

I agree with this. I'd even put the world instead of Europe here because only a sudden global economic crisis (or, rather, an event that rapidly leads into it all getting worse) can make a difference at this point. Fiat might be less stable than it used to be, but it's nowhere near the volatility rate of cryptocurrencies, so they don't seem like a more reliable choice these days. Bitcoin is going up and down, and if 5% inflation in a year is not good for fiat, Bitcoin is 10% down over the last 7 days, so the difference is still huge and fiat seems extremely stable in comparison.

1) Who will receive the ball first?  Patriots
2) Will the Patriots cover the -7 point spread?  No
3)  Game total 47.5? Under
4)  Highest scoring Quarter?  2nd
5) Patriots total points?  Odd
6)  Falcons total points?  Even
7)  Mac Jones to throw for 230 yards?  Over
8 )  Matt Ryan to throw for 240 yards?  Under
9)  Damien Harris to score a TD?  Yes
10)  Cordarrelle Patterson to score a TD?  No

Final Score prediction  27-20 Patriots

12)  Miesha Tate
11)  Sean Brady
10)  Kyung Ho Kang
9)  Taila Santos 
8 )  Adrian Yanez
7)  Lupita Godinez
6)  Pat Sabatini 
5)  Luana Pinheiro
4)  Rafa Garcia
3)  Terrance McKinney
2)  Cody Durden
1)  Sean Soriano

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.