Bitcoin does not have a fault of any kind, but that is not enough for it to be embraced by countries. By design, Bitcoin seems incompatible with the requisites of any government. Bitcoin presents itself as an alternative payment system with its own native currency. The problem with this is that it is completely free from government's control. Moreover, it is decentralized and, issued by an unknown and private entity, no one could be held answerable for it. Furthermore, the rules couldn't be bent in any direction the government may wish. It is, after all, hard-coded in the system. But, hopefully, by popular demand and adoption it could become a legal alternative. Well, it starts to happen.

When you started using Exodus, were you asked to sign up? I guess not. You were not creating an account with the wallet. You were not asked for any information such as name, email, phone number, and so on. There's no reason why Exodus would know your age.

Exodus is non-custodial. You are given full control of your funds with your mnemonic phrase. However, as others have already pointed out, since it is close-source, we cannot tell whether the control of your funds is solely yours.

It is my impression that Binance is less responsible when it comes to dealing with local regulators face to face. They seem to act as if they're global and, therefore, does not care much about what's going on locally. They seem to think as if they're bigger than local regulatory demands.

As regards Binance's attempt to register in the UK, I think they've already withdrawn their application as early as May. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're not anymore seeking FCA approval. They seem to be nonchalant about it, satisfied with the fact that despite not getting the nod from the FCA, they can still and are still offering crypto trading to UK citizens, although apparently there's a backlash from the banks and payment systems, which must be quite unexpected to them.

Following these developments, significant increases were observed in other platforms such as Bitstamp, Kraken, Gemini, and others.

Tesla may or may not accept Bitcoin soon, but it definitely will one day. But who cares about Tesla not accepting Bitcoin? Do you think Bitcoin's growth would be stalled simply because Tesla is not accepting it as an alternative form of payment? Of course, not. On the other hand, do you think Tesla would remain stubborn in not accepting Bitcoin if there is a significant demand for it or if Bitcoin becomes widely used as alternative payment?

Surely you can just ignore them, that is, if you didn't participate on them. If you did, just make sure you didn't provide anything to them, not any amount nor any information. If you are attracted to airdrops, even if they aren't attractive at all, I advise that you create a specific wallet for them. Give them a separate unused address as well. If you can, just stay away from all of them. 99% of them are no good and there's a ton of new airdrops every single day. It is next to impossible to thoroughly screen them.

Airdropped tokens and coins don't speak much. So I advise that you go directly to the project itself and make sure the contract address of the airdropped tokens is exactly the same address indicated in their official whitepaper or website.

A state-backed crypto wallet is certainly undesirable but without any policy that compels Salvadoran people to only use such wallet, I guess it is not that bad at all. Regardless, here's a state who is pushing forward something which is indeed for the welfare of its people. Bitcoin is no government-issued currency. Neither is it under the control of any of its agencies and branches. Despite all of this, however, the government is still making sure its people could make use of all its features.

I could say this is a victory of El Salvador and its people!

Of course, I agree. To a poor, it doesn't hurt if he/she is to explore all possible options out there in the wide crypto market. Provided he/she has a lot of available time, he/she could explore NFTs.

DeFi tokens are an option but if it entails too high a risk, I'd rather not stake what little I have for it.

Play to earn games are an emerging trend in crypto. I acknowledge its useful role to play among those who want to grab the opportunity to earn. There's so much to discover in this particular area. There are those games which require initial capital but there are also those which do not. This trend is still at its earlier stage. A lot could actually gain from it.

Most especially with margin trading. Leverage is a perfect tool for predators.


Binance must be doing something to save their neck. That's certain. We shouldn't be worried about it. As a matter of fact, we can see not just regulatory compliance but also a little extra with the company's decision to reduce daily withdrawal limit to a mere 0.06BTC and a compulsory intermediate verification for everyone.

However, more than surpassing all these legal battles, I hope Binance's unfair practices would be uncovered if there are any. That would compel them to shape up into a fairer exchange.

ESports is already popular and I assume eSports betting odds are available in all major betting platforms. I used to bet heavily on eSports and I didn't find it hard to look for odds in top crypto betting sites like Sportsbet, Nitrogen, Cloudbet, and so on. Especially Dota II, it's very popular and has the largest prize pool in all of eSports history, surpassing $40 million in the upcoming TI 10 in Romania.

It's just that eSports is highly niche-based. It cannot be compared to the likes of soccer, basketball, tennis, and other sports.

Exactly. After all, if they are monitoring the figures, they should have already been enlightened that they cannot kill cryptocurrency. And the government shouldn't be unfriendly toward a neutral technology which they couldn't kill. They'd rather legalize and milk it.
 

In a continent where fiat currencies are fast depreciating and where remittance plays a major role, crypto is a blessing indeed. It keeps the value of the African people's savings over time, if not increase it, and provides them a cheaper and faster way to transact globally.

I hope the government of Nigeria has been made aware of this so that they will realize that they are actually not in a good position to partially ban the cryptocurrency in the country.

Bitcoin is designed for P2P transactions. And as an antagonist of Bitcoin, Nigeria is actually fulfilling the goal of Bitcoin. The government could remain adamant in the face of what appears to be a futile action against Bitcoin or acknowledge it as a rising technology and start regulating and taxing related transactions with financial institutions.

I am not a fan of absolute decentralization. Neither am I a fan of anarchy. And I believe that with human beings, there will always be a kind of central authority or government. So when a government collapses, even if a certain degree of anarchy will follow, it is definitely temporary. It's just a matter of time before a sort of a central power will surface.

Anyway, as regards economics, any government cannot just create a kind of direction if all control is taken away. The entire government would end up inutile. So while it may be prone to abuse, I guess it is equally absurd to deprive the government of any control.

Absolute freedom is not to be desired.

Newbies of cryptocurrency should just make things very simple for themselves. They may not be fully aware yet of the bolts and nuts of cryptocurrency but they should adopt very basic security rules right from the start.

One of which is to avoid high-yield offers. They should as well be aware right from the start that exchanges are not places to store funds. In short, newbies should always take note that (1) crypto is not a get-rich-quick scheme and that (2) private keys should be under their sole control.

I guess these are enough for a start pending further research and exposure. 

There is a possibility and, yes, any country can indeed ban cryptocurrency-based games. As for the former, I can't imagine a fair reason why a certain NFT game is to be banned simply because the people are earning and the government fails to collect taxes from them. That's too shallow a reason for a ban. As for the latter, there's always a way to go around it. So, all in all, I guess you shouldn't worry that much, especially because it seems you are referring to a country not as strict as North Korea or China.

The document presented in the tweet doesn't say anything at all along the lines of your accusation, so your title is misleading and even malicious. "According to the SEC" is definitely putting words to their mouth. That's not just unfair; that's illegal.

The letter is only saying (1) they're withholding the records you are requesting, (2) they're not disclosing the existence or non-existence of an investigation, (3) they're not asserting that Binance is involved in any legal violations.

The main point of the letter is that your request is not granted.

No, of course, not. Between sports and sports betting, the problem is obviously the betting. If you want to address sports betting, I guess it is wrong to remove the sports in it. You have to remove the betting in sports betting. It cannot be said that the sports is triggering betting. Of the millions of sports fans, only a small portion of it are bettors.

Of course if the problem is really severe as in sports bettors have already developed uncontrollable urges to gamble, professional help should be sought. But if it is not that severe, I guess reducing bets to the minimum is good enough.

Leaving it alone will worsen things, and rather than crypto reaching its full potential, it might actually spell the end of it. I must say the law is rather limited at this point, especially because the crypto space is rather new. In other words, existing laws may not be enough to protect the consumers.

The space has indeed reached more than a trillion in market cap but we cannot also discount that in just a relatively short period of time billions have already been lost from consumers.

Let's take as an example the highly unregulated ICO market. There used to be a time during its height when all kinds of projects are launching their ICOs. It was free for all. A group of young men who know how to copy codes could easily create a project out of nowhere and make millions, only to declare failure shortly afterward.

Sure, you can run after the scammers among them. However, as in other things, prevention is certainly better than cure.

For the past months, Binance has been facing a number of regulatory troubles in more than a handful countries. The company is also facing lawsuits at the same time. And as if things are not yet enough for the beleaguered exchange, another allegation had just come out. This time it is about manipulating the market, specifically engaging in counter trading and liquidation of users. This serious accusation came from someone who claimed to be a former big data engineer of the exchange.


Interestingly, even if the accusation is just raised by a random and anonymous Twitter user, @RealFulltimeApe, in a mere tweet, Binance seems to have been bothered by it. They responded to it by releasing a statement. And while they appear to brush it off as a mere FUD, something coming from someone who is an impersonator or one with malicious intent, it seems they are also hinting at the possibility of it being true by saying they also welcome responsible whistle-blowing. Does Binance fear of what RealFulltimeApe has up his sleeve?

As I've been saying, I'm no fan of margin trading, especially those with ridiculous leverages; they're an invitation for intentional liquidations. But is Binance also involved with it?

By the way, RealFulltimeApe's tweet is already deleted as well as his account deactivated.

Sources:

1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/binance-denies-allegations-of-market-manipulation
2. https://crypto-economy.com/heres-what-binance-has-to-say-about-market-manipulation-allegation/
3. https://twitter.com/binance/status/1429848224215355394

It may be funny but probably correct. Cryptocurrency and all cryptocurrency-related products and services cannot thrive if they are declared illegal. If the law prohibits all of them, their potentials couldn't be reached. I am not saying they will cease to exist and even function, but probably minimally, underground, and definitely less attractive as its use would entail penalties.

I'm not sure if Bitcoin has that huge influence over human affairs, most likely not. I even think that for most of Bitcoin owners and believers, Bitcoin is just one tiny aspect of their lives. Having said that, Bitcoin is most certainly not as indispensable as some may think. Bitcoin's eventual success or failure does not automatically mean their own success or failure. I therefore think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that Satoshi Nakamoto created a brand new world for mankind.