I'm guessing they're still in the middle ground about it? Basically still being undecisive since they can't judge on which side they should actually place crypto at. I'd reckon they have their answers personally themselves, but I guess they have to view the bigger picture of the system hence why they're still at the indecisive point. It is rather disappointing though since there are opportunities that are being missed with them being indecisive like this.

I'd give them probably another year or two maybe? If they still don't understand what to do by then they've probably just going to retain their stand as is.

Hey being a casino all the time doesn't mean that the person is an addict, the opposite could also be the same. Gambling in a sense is both for fun and for profit (though I'd really say that it's not for profit, the system says otherwise imo). I'd say it's mostly for fun, though considering that winning is also fun, then it just simply means that winning money is also fun. Just that putting profits as the end goal in itself isn't the fun of gambling, it's like a side result imo, compared to actually winning games.

Why would you constantly want to withdraw? Isn't that just getting yourself killed with the fees? It's like your donating free money to the exchanges you're using lmao. I've honestly never had the habit of what you speak of, I only put whatever money I wouldn't really use in crypto, and that's separate from the funds that I'd immediately need in case of emergencies. Really, it's just proper finance management, and you wouldn't really have these issues imo. Budgeting is always effective if you know what you're doing.

Judging investments should be done on what it would be in the future, and not the current. That being said it also doesn't mean that when the price is low, it means it's a good investment. That's why finding a good investment at times is hard, it's like predicting the future. Identifying what the trend is, looking out for possible advancements that a project could bring, stuff like that. One should probably look at multiple factors instead of just a single factor before judging an asset.

I wouldn't really think so....? I mean in the first place, sponsorships are done by companies, as a sort of advertisement for their business, they don't really specify what form or medium their sponsorship is, that would just be... well, odd. It could even be a damn waste of time which instead could be used to lengthen the duration or increase the size of their names popping out from whatever sort of sponsorship they are doing. Maybe if a sponsor was centered around a coin instead of their company, then maybe, just maybe, it could work.

Just don't gamble if you're triggered about it, easy as that. I'd reckon there are countless amounts of games out there that could possibly make you enjoy your time more instead of tilting hard due to losing and earning money. You can even play some luck-based games out there if you really want those types, just don't gamble about it. Mood definitely does not influence luck imo, it's just that you learn to accept losses in a good way if you actually play while having a good mood. It's like no matter what happens, even if the house next door is getting bombed, you'd still be able to live life quite normally.

I don't think it's needed tbh? If you're that afraid of your data from being leaked when the social media app you use gets hacked, just don't use it in a way that reveals your personal data, easy as that. Use a different name, info, use giveaway infos for emails and phones (ones that are still legit ofc, but not ones that you actually use). Plus, you lose a LOT of uhh controllability? That you'd usually have compared to using centralized social media since you wouldn't be able to edit stuff about your profile, info is given out, and much more. All in all, centralized is much better imo since it can cater more to what it's users actually want.

Probably try to find suitable coins with reasonably lower gas fees to convert into before trying to trade it into fiat. I use XRP or Litecoin most of the time, they're pretty reasonable with fees from what I've experienced. I'd reckon there's no really exact exchange that has low fees, they're all pretty high depending on the coin you're using. Honestly, fees are quite expected from exchanges, just that it's close to unreasonable at times really. Guess you just have to plan out most of your transactions do you don't get hit like this next time.

It's not a matter of putting your mind into it imo, it's really a matter of luck. Underestimating it could lead to a lot of losses. Even with capabilities, if it fucks you up, it just does that. Not to mention that to keep trying, you'd actually need the money to still continue after all, and that would limit what you could do with hard work imo. That's why it's mostly for fun tbh, since if you start considering it as a job, then damn it's not going to be fun. JUst the money you'd need in the first place is enough to make someone despair after all.

Not really no, even if the coins were permanently lost, it just means that the available supply would be reduced. It can even reach the point where we would use smaller units of Bitcoin such as satoshi to count the amounts (or maybe even smaller) if need be. There's nothing really wrong with the intended 21 million I must say, even if we lost hundreds of BTC, the network would still run faithfully since the price would naturally adjust depending on the total amount of available supply together with the demand.

Please, corruption would only cease to exist if the concept of politicians were to entirely disappear. Other factors have close to zero relation on them avoiding the rules that they themselves, as OP said, made. It's really nothing new tbh, it's just that there's a lot of know-it-alls on the internet that seem to disagree with that fact, though whether it's actually their own belief or was simply hired by some random dude with money, we'll never know. Really, if people were to just stop for a minute and think, they'd realize some arguments are darn stupid.

There's no believing or not believing in something you actually use ngl. It's like saying that everyone who uses fiat believes in fiat, and therefore I can safely assume that everyone that uses it is in a cult of fiat believers now am I right? Damn never knew I joined one lmao. Using my common sense again, using something doesn't need you to believe in it or not, it's just that, being used. It's like everyone is trying to put some overdramatic explanation over something so simple, beliefs? No, it's just Bitcoin being usable, that's it.

Loaning was never something that was solely limited to banks though. Crypto was just being your own bank, it never said anything about removing the concept of what banks are, you just become one yourself imo. Plus, there's a lot of centralized exchanges out there that have the lending system, just that you need collateral to go with it. I dunno if it's actually in demand, but I don't think it would actually disappear, it's always been a part of the financial system after all, as long as transactions exists, loaning would definitely be there imo.

Sad thing is it isn't even a joke imo, what the king said was perfectly reasonable, it WILL destroy them. Gambling is like a plague, it doesn't just damage one person, it damages everything around that person slowly but surely.
Honestly, there's no such thing as "skill-based" gambling games, it's still dependent on your luck imo. If they were looking for something they can win by having more knowledge about it, gambling isn't the game for them. Yes, I know what skill-based gambling games are, but those are still called "gambling" games, see my point? They might just be better off playing games like Hearthstone and participating in tournaments and the like.

1) Coin dumps easy as that.
2) Why? Mining doesn't even destroy the system, it's the one that actually helps it imo.
3) Explaining it in simple terms, it's like trying to describe the value of something into what we're used to. E.g, describing the value of a piece of clothing to dollars, food to dollars, etc., it's simply a method to make it easier to determine it's value in a way where majority can actually understand what it means.
4) Just block them then. It's not a problem with crypto, it's just scammers being scammers really.

It's just knowing the rules, that's it. If you yourself knowing that you did something that made them accuse you of not following their T&C, then that's that, morale or ethics doesn't really say anything here since it's just damn common sense. Now if you ask them why you got yourself banned, and you yourself clearly have no idea, then if they answer, all is fine, if they don't, well now there's where the problem would start. It's ethical since they need to answer if asked however, it isn't really needed for them to actually tell them what T&C you actually violated, that is imo only ofc.

I'm pretty sure you can find a lot of info about it already just by looking it up. Really, no one is going to give you a damn accurate answer since the market reacts not to what they say, they're called predictions for a reason. Besides, most info on what predictions are could be inferred just by studying the roadmaps and plans of the coins that you're investing in, when something new releases and you think it's effective, then it'd most likely go up. It's just a personal judgement thing imo.

It's legal afaik. There are localized laws though about allowing or prohibiting gambling but in general, there's no country-wide law that gambling is prohibited, it's just up to the Mayors of each city to decide whether they would touch upon that issue or not afaik. Still, I don't think it's that rampart in my city? I've never really seen any big gambling casinos here but there are some local gambling tourneys that happen every now and then. It's like it's not officiated, and so at the same time, there's really no official place for it to happen so it just happens wherever.

It's probably an issue of something else then? It's either a miscommunication or the IP of the banned person was traced somewhere gambling or the site wasn't allowed to actually provide it's services, hence the ban. I'd think it's rather easy to fix issues of misplaced accusations with regards to multi-accounting, not to mention that most other casinos provide KYC no? I don't think it's much of an issue for rich people since they'd perform KYC since otherwise, they'd be quite limited. Multi accounts are simply there to avoid users taking advantage of the system that's pretty much it.

Well I'd reckon crypto-related usage in the US would only take time before we actually receive updates on it. It's like they're still on the neutral side of things imo, pretty indecisive imo yes, but crypto is only a decade old after all, I'd reckon they're still testing the waters or something like that. Once Crypto adoption pops off, crypto casino developments really ain't that far off imo. Besides, gambling is indeed super regulated, but it isn't exactly banned or anything, heck it's actually a system where it's more controlled, leading to more positive developments imo.