As we know, a panel of the UK House of Common Treasury Committee on May 17 proposed retail cryptocurrency trading and investment to be regulated as gambling as they viewed it as “same risk, same regulatory outcome.” I later threw this on board, and I was encouraged as people overwhelmingly disagree on this.

Since it's a mere proposal, yesterday, the Treasury's Economic Secretary Andrew Griffith blatantly rejected it as he “firmly disagrees” with the stance of the committee.

Some of the considerations of the government are:

1. The controversial proposal could cause conflicts of mandates between the Gambling Commission and Financial regulators.
2. It's odd and a deviation from global recommendations and stance on cryptocurrency trading.

The government however iterated its commitment to crypto regulation, and with the look of things, it would be regulated like other trading assets in the financial market, but with little alteration.

Personally, I don't know why this should be an issue from the beginning as cryptocurrency is an asset which should be treated as such in both payments, trading and investment regulations.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-rejects-call-regulate-crypto-gambling-2023-07-20/
https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-uk-rejects-regulating-crypto-gambling

The bullish trend and movements of Bitcoin in April when I posted the $35,000-$37,000 as barriers suggested by my instinct were still much threatening, despite that, it has been unable to breach the quoted levels. It's instinctive speculation, yet it has proven very effective just as the majority of my instincts with regard to the market always come positive. I still maintain my view on these levels and hope to be smiling on the 1st of January next year.

You might be right that traders need the verified analysis to be able to speculate, but do not forget the truth that insists often work. And at times, it works more than the trader's analysis as it's just the summary of what the trader knows about the market that his brain and experience are forcefully telling even if it couldn't be read directly on the trading chart.

This is your Bitcoin address, it serves just like the bank account number where you would be able to receive your coin and send it to other addresses. I advise you to learn more online about this to avoid mistakes, it would help you further as you are new to the world of cryptocurrency.

Read this: Bitcoin address and uses.

Man City would definitely miss Pep Guardiola when he eventually leaves that club, the guy has spent 7 years there already, he can't be there forever. But his style has always been positive for Man City, and the club has won almost all the leagues after then. I still hope that Pep is careful with signings in this transfer window so that much changes would not distort the good results. Players like Ilkay Gundogan, Aymeric Laporte and Bernardo Silva would be missed if the deals are done, hope that good replacements will be fixed.

I can't help but laugh in Chinese here, it's not so kind to keep what is not yours, it's just gross. If I was you, I will either leave it and go my way as if I never saw it or call the attention of the hotel management to it.

What is not yours is not yours, you can do well by avoiding Karma by doing the right thing. A true man would work for his money.

Foolishness and the inability of someone to accept their fault could be responsible for shifting blame when no one pushes you to gamble. The solution to gambling rightly is to gamble responsibly, and that could be done through discipline and self-determination, nothing else. Fine, one could manage their gambling portfolio, but that's just an approach to gambling rightly, but addicts often abandon all that when they are losing, not even a reasonable calculation or advice can save them at that time.

Since this is a psychological issue that triggers the emotions of the gambler, it takes a psychological approach of being disciplined from within to tackle it.

It's easy for the E-hailing companies to dive into the food delivery business, and will be easy for them to dive into any other delivery package for that matter because they are already in the transportation system. For example, Uber is already in the system, they are popular. Therefore, it's just for them to alter an app and call it whatever name they want, let it is known to the people, and the business starts.

As for restaurants, I don't believe it's difficult for them too, that's if they want to introduce it into their business, especially when they are popular and have all it takes like KFC. Only that it might not be part of their business focus. They could just make it known and bring experts in the distribution and E-hailing field. Although, some would consider the cost-effectiveness of it and rather partner with services like Uber Eats.

After all, a partnership is part of the business, you don't always own it all.

Even if it doesn't seem obvious, there are two motives of clubs, it's to win trophies and to make money. It now depends on what they focus on and how they still manage their resources to achieve the two for themselves. Borussia Dortmund is stylishly achieving the two at the same time, and I will not blame them for that, though it's obvious that people have been talking much about it. Yet, they manage to always deliver as they always have a voice in the league and a top rival of any winner of the league.

They've been second in the last 5 leagues and ended up being third in one. This is not so bad and one day they will get it right and be the winner. Bayern Munich is not a club you could just win anyhow even without selling good players, Dortmund would not also sell all their good players, only that they would have had their chance on Bayern last season if they are better serious enough.

Here we go again, when policy is inside policies, people tend to be confused about what worked. I thought of China while posting, and if anyone says that it's population control that helped China then the person misrepresents it. Any country that gets it right has nothing to fear about population, the management of the situation to their advantage through the right leadership and policies is the answer. This can only explain why countries like Canada are looking for more immigrants, you should know that an increase in population is never a problem, but the system the increased population would meet. If the system is positive, the increased population will help, if it's negative, then it becomes an issue.

As for China, this was what they tried to curb as they weren't getting the system right then while the population was becoming alarming, they averted a disaster. As of today, their big number even helps more since their system is working fine, the population increase would only have been an issue if they follow suit their former bad economic path, and now experts are concerned about looming issues if their population drops much as too much ageing population is never good for an economy.

Finally, what helped China to achieve their present status is mainly attributed to "good leadership and human resources." Also, their weaker currency compared to top countries aids further in the good trade balance which helps their GDP. Their ability to produce substandard products and render services cheaper than many top world countries goes a long way in helping their economy, this is even as their huge number contributed to this success, not otherwise as you indicated.

What can I say, Congratulations to Mahdirakib, it takes luck to receive merits twice for the same purpose...

It happened to me twice with two usernames on a single day last year and a good lesson was learned. I guess Chrome warned me of a double submission if am correct, I only ignored it.

The population could be a blessing or a curse. This depends on the leaders of the country we are talking about and the people therein.

If policies are not good enough, the higher the population, the more devasting it would be. Another thing about the population is about those people that form the population (the masses), if they are nonentities, then there is nothing much positive that would come out of it.

Forget about increasing or reducing the population, it doesn't work, they are just litmus test as far as I'm concerned and it has different results per country. Once the foundation/system is wrong, it's a problem, the country can't get it right with either increased or reduced population.

I thought I was the only one considering this, there are no major changes with their teams, so I predict something similar to what happened last season. But of course, with a little alteration some new management would be seen and the determination of the players to bring out their best matters too. Juventus is another club that I know will try better than last season irrespective of to/from of the current window, the team seems okay to me and have to be the major rival of their champion Napoli. But know that there is no club that is not facing a financial crisis, they know how to sort this out, I only believe that they are treading carefully.

I've ever known that the minimum legal age that one could do most adult things is 18 years of age, and the authorities in the US must know what they are doing which explains why they added an extra 3 years to it in most states. Even many people that are well over adulthood have challenges with gambling addicts as they couldn't control themselves in some cases not to talk of those teenagers that are just entering adulthood.

With regards to if they can adhere to this, you should know that this is not the situation in most cases. The parents, children and betting companies/agents they are dealing with are all guilty of this. Any of them with good stature could get the service easily, while in other cases, a visibly underage would bet without any question asked. While some parents would even send their underage children to access the service for them.

The boldened part is the best part of what you wrote. If it was to be some, they will definitely abandon farming and its benefits entirely and rather go and be living life to its fullest in the urban area until they squander the money. You guys are doing well!

Truly, I have the instinct that Bitcoin could be more than $100k in the next 1.5 years, so it's a very good decision you guys are making. You can do better by propagating this news to the neighbouring communities as well, they will surely thank you later.

#Concluded sumup#

Well, my own proofreading matters much to me for my work to be more correct, constructive and accurate as possible. That's why I do it many times before I post. However, your last reply made me realize that you don't seem to fully understand what I was talking about, perhaps twisting it, no wonder you are the only one complaining about this while others share their views. I see no error in my view and explanation.

For the first part, it was irrelevant whether the ATH was broken or not since I defined it well that it was when the ATH was still that of the 23rd of June, which was also the peak of the month, and I made it known that it wasn't the year's ATH because I don't have business with the ATH after June in my upper barrier consideration. It's the scope of my analysis, what else could a writer do in this regard? Anyone could define their writeup as they like, it's the reader that should try to understand, not try to force the writer to write it in their own way.

And for the second part, haven't you heard about fake and false breakouts? That's what happened, and it's even evident by the market not having a single daily close above June's ATH, they are just fake. The phenomenon is simple and common in the market, I wonder why it's a big deal for you. While the reason is that more selling interests are at that level ($31450) than the will of the buyers. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a market breaks a level, what matters is whether or not it sustains it. Did it sustain it? No.

Lastly, I don't see any problem with my prediction, Bitcoin has a long-term bullish trend but was channelling with no particular short-term trend when I made this post. The buyers and sellers will continue to play their games in their minor ways within the larger scope of the overall bullish trend. However, a successful breach of $31450 by the buyers will activate the continuation of the overall bullish trend, while a breach of $29400 activates a continued bearish correction that might lead to a major bearish reversal if it persists.

I guess you read the post in a hurry, I proofread my posts many times before posting them.

Regardless, your query has been addressed earlier above the place you picked it, that's for those who read it from the beginning since there are ATHs of the same year before and after the one I referred to, which was why I used "before the subsequent ones" as seen in my quote below.


Meaning that the "(the year's ATH established in June)" I stated was the reference to the 23rd of June's ATH. It's not the ATH of the year as you believed, there is one before and others after.

As for this part, I'd read it twice and saw no single fault in what I wrote. It explains what exactly I see and still see on the subject. Meanwhile, buyers and sellers could still be dragging the trend within the wider scope of the trend depending on the term you are looking at (short/long).

For details' sake, "as buyers seem to be gaining more traction" and "more sellers seem to be piling up" denote the general psychology of the market even though the price is hooked at some place as captured in the picture attached. Even at that, nothing is contradictory here because the market has the right to sell on reaching $31450 when it encounters more sellers there even if it was bullish. And again, the sellers might regroup at the level for subsequent selling if the market recovers back to that level upon the initial selloff caused by their (sellers) activity. This could continue unless higher buying interest is indicated at the level, and this is just a normal thing happening in all markets.

I'm a dynamic trader, any position the true sentiment reveals is where I follow.

Your points are not logical, maybe you should go back to read what you replied to for better understanding since it's obvious you just replied out of context. No one is entirely blaming Arteta, he tried last season and won awards, and no one is also disputing the fact that Man City has good firepower in their squad. What I agreed to in my response to a post by @BALIK is that as clubs are preparing for their main squad, they should also do so for their backups too, that's in case of the unforeseen. This one you are ranting about by stating the obvious is what I simply don't understand.

Comparing Arsenal with Man City will not yield a good balance because the two are not the same when it comes to the brilliance and consistency of their coaches. The weakness in Arsenal later got revealed due to a few injuries and all these still lead to the blame of the coach as that is part of what is expected of him to get the viable mains and backups. You also have a good observation that Alvarez and Foden are good backups for Man City, it is part of the plan. Even at that, Arsenal got relented months to the end of last season, they can't simply get it done with such unwilling morale shown.

I heard about this flash transaction a while ago, but with all my queries and research, the information was wrong. It's another means for scammers to reap you of your money. Everyone should avoid it and be aware that some software/apps compatible with Google were advertising it at that time. It might be a way to infest your gadget as well.

Come to think of it, the Bitcoin blockchain is not a joke, the deal is always done after some reasonable number of confirmations that can't be reversed. I wonder how such a flash mechanism could be allowed to fit in. Be warmed!

It's simply No from my angle. Bitcoin was not primarily designed for personalization and recognition. On the contrary, was designed for anonymity and privacy.

It's not worth it if one should consider conservativeness. But for those people and companies that put personalization and identification on their heads, it might.