It's refreshing to see someone so brave and open about their Bitcoin investment and how much they own. It's a realistic but also really decent amount, and it's encouraging to see someone who got into Bitcoin investments very recently, but managed to choose a good strategy (DCA) and make some sound choices.
Bitcoin is still on the rise and probably well below the next ATH point, so this amount can turn into an even bigger one fairly soon (in one more year, perhaps). I have to admit, I wasn't as consistent with my own attempts to accumulate Bitocoin lately, but I'm planning to do better.

So, does the op mean that they tried a Bitcoin ATM for the first time? There are many questions in the op's post, but not much about impression. What was the fee, how long did the whole experience take, was there an ID check of any sort, was there a minimum/maximum limit? In things like this, the details show that a story is true, and they are actually interesting to hear. As others have shown and pointed out, the story looks fake.
I've never used a Bitcoin ATM. I think there are a couple in my city, but I just generally don't like ATMs, even the regular ones. I always feel awkward and a bit unsafe using them because everyone around knows I'm dealing with money right there and right now. I feel more comfortable with online exchanges because I can take my time and do everything comfortably from home this way.

If I need to answer questions in a bank, I keep my answers very short, with the minimal amount of details I can get away with. I don't want to provide a lot of info to them, and I usually don't even mention that I have bank accounts in other banks, let alone any crypto holdings. There are some questions banks are legally required to ask, but a lot of questions actually aren't among them and are just things banks ask because they feel like it.
The op has already told the bank about Bitcoin, so there's nothing to do but hope that they won't care. Maybe they'll just write it down under employment section, I don't know.

It's wonderful news that it's now among the safest Latin American countries, that surely says they're doing something right. Also, considering that violence is often linked to poverty, it might imply some economic changes as well. I see that some success was due to harsh but important measures to weaken gangs, and I believe that people have the right to choose a strong leader who can introduce strong measures when there are pressing matters like gang wars.
For now, it seems difficult to measure its economic growth, but 2021 was a great year of getting out of the challenges of the pandemic, and 2022 was on par with typical annual GDP growth for this country.

The economy is not degrading globally. The inflation is largely getting under control, the economy is expected to continue growing globally (even if it's supposed to happen slower than before). In my country, the situation is improving a lot, compared to 2023 and especially to 2022. So it's not all getting worse, and sometimes it might be good to wait a bit and see where things are going, instead of rushing blindly and making a risky decision. Knowing when to stop and think, and when to act, is very important is a dynamic world we live in.

That's a lovely story the op shared, but there are a couple of things to note here. First, it's around 2.5x profit for now, which is really nice, objectively, but also probably not considered high enough by many Bitcoin investors, since you can usually get more out of Bitcoin if you wait longer. Another thing is that buying just before the price starts rising is a matter of luck, and sometimes it takes years to see any profits with Bitcoin investment. So buying at the right time is not easy to do because things can change fairly fast, and the bear market can be very long.

That's a very unfortunate story, I'm sorry that a person fell a victim of, basically, theft in this relationship. Of course, though, such things can happen even in marriage, with one person stealing from another or storming off with funds at some point. So it's tricky and requires some trust, which also presupposes the risks that it might be broken.
I'm married, and I have been married since the beginning of my experiments with cryptos, so I don't know how I would have acted. I suppose to me, it's more about how serious a relationship is, rather than whether people are actually married. I'm a pretty trusting person, and I believe that relationships should be built on trust, so I share my finances with my spouse, cryptos included.

Being informed and making informed decisions is a good idea not only in crypto space, but in general in life. The same goes for lifelong learning and actively seeking knowledge.
Relying on information about the past is important, though, as that's how we usually learn about types of scams and can try to find general patterns to resist scammers of the future.
To navigate tons of information, we also need strong analytic reasoning and other skills to make sure that we know how to find and assess information.

Thankfully, I like in a more equitable country, where some people do have some standard patriarchal values, but younger generations are more progressive. Women and men join the workforce pretty equally, so both have their own finances and can choose to either have the split budget or a shared budget. Men are not expected to pay for dates or exclusively buy presents. It's common to split the bills and for both to give presents to each other in a relationship.
Gifting money isn't common in couples in my country, a gift is supposed to be something specific (not necessarily expensive, as it can be just something pretty like a love letter or some sweets). I don't know about the op's country, but perhaps that's why the girl was offended, too, as money is the easiest gift because you don't need to take time and care into buying an actual gift this way.

I love that the op's post is very detailed, provides a lot of useful info and is based on several sources. We're very far from the required price and capitalization to beat gold, so it's important to be realistic about it. I do believe that $678k per Bitcoin is a possibility, but not something that will happen in the near future. The last bull market brought a 3x multiplier, so, if the multiplier doesn't get smaller, we'd need 4-5 bull markets for the price to get to that point. Considering the long bear markets and an average 4-year cycle, that means we need 15–20 years to get there. But that's not all because, in the meantime, gold can also increase its value, so Bitcoin would get the where gold used to be as of 2024. Fully catching up is not something I consider impossible, but it can take several decades, I believe.

This is a very unfortunate situation. Of course, before selling BTC, one should do some research about the most reputable exchanges, and familiarize oneself with the interface of a chosen exchange before placing a big order.
In my experience with exchanges, I set the price of the sell order myself, so if it was near the market price, the order was filled very quickly, and if it was way off, it just remained an open order, but there was no way of my coins being sold for a price that I didn't set. It's terrible that it can actually happen on some exchanges, as the tweet shows.

I think there should always be a choice. As long as non-custodial wallets are legal and widely accessible, that's good enough for me. As long as we can discuss the importance of having one's own keys and can convince others to go for non-custodial solutions, it's fine. Centralized platforms are another choice, a choice that some might want to make because they're very used to having an option to restore a password if they lose it, or to rely on a big corporation instead of relying on themselves. If people know the pros and cons of both options, they can make their own decisions. I prefer a non-custodial wallet, but I don't think that everyone must share my preference.

Well, being able to afford to put 500 EUR into BTC every month for so many years is certainly a great privilege. It's a lovely strategy, and even without major Bitcoin growth it can amass to a very decent amount of savings. With how Bitcoin has been growing over the years, it really sounds like a very decent plan, provided that Bitcoin continues to grow in the long run.
I haven't tried anything similar because I don't have that kind of money to set aside, but I like the strategy, the determination, and the plan.

This topic has been discussed a few times in the past. Here's a recent report on the scientific side of things, which I find very helpful. The peak is expected in 2025, so it's a challenge for the near future. Some events that can happen due to solar activity are radio blackouts, disruptions of navigation via the satellite system, electric grid disruptions. Repairs after an extreme storm are estimated to take weeks, perhaps months, and we're not talking about a total blackout all over our planet.
So it can be a major challenge, kind of like the pandemic was. But the issues will be temporary, and the main problems will be with more serious things like navigation, financial transactions, access to information and to healthcare, etc. Bitcoin will still be out there, I suppose it's likely to experience a major price drop (due to global economic instability, cause by the disruptions and uncertainty in digital technology), but to also recover once the repairs are done and things get back to normal.

There are no accurate estimates of how much BTC is actually lost vs how much is just inactive because the owners don't want to move it anywhere. Assuming that BTC is lost if it wasn't moved over several years (and that's exactly what some estimates do) isn't really fair. Maybe someone lost a password, but can accidentally find it in the future. Maybe someone has access to coins but is such a hodler that enjoys keeping the funds in an unmoving state.
There will be no compensation for the lost coins (and I am sorry for people who lost their coins), but there's also no need for that because Bitcoin is divisible into satoshis.

Global village is an interesting concept, but it doesn't necessarily represent the world we currently live in. I think it's more of an illusion of the global village, because it feels as if we're all connected online and there are no barriers to our communication, but in practice, people tend to talk to those that share their views, tons of people are not online at all, and there are a lot of discussions of social isolation in the world of the Internet.
As for creating thinking, there are just too many ways to understand that. But overall, I agree that creativity is useful in life, and perhaps useful in the global economy, excluding places where you can get in jail or be killed on the street for your creativity, and you need to stick to the rules to survive.

Others have put it really well, saying that cryptos don't raise the standard of living on their own. If you make bad investment choices or lose access to your crypto holdings, you might actually get to a worse position than the one you initially had. If you make good choices that pay-off, maybe you'll get a boost, and in extremely fortunate cases you might actually become significantly wealthier. If you don't lose a lot of funds and don't gain a lot of profit, you'll just stay roughly where you were, I suppose. But perhaps learning about cryptos will help you gain some new knowledge that can in turn be useful to improve the quality of life by better understanding certain financial processes, which is also significant.

That's some impressive growth of a new industry, although not surprising because investment companies have been applying for Bitcoin ETFs for many years, which means that the demand for them has been around for a while. Thankfully, there's plenty of Bitcoin to go around, and 192k BTC is a little below 1% of the current circulating supply.
I don't think that this growth will continue at such a rapid pace, though. I'd be surprised to see 1 million BTC in ETFs in a year, for example. Then again, that would be just $52 billion worth of BTC, which also isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, so maybe it is a realistic assumption (assuming that the price doesn't change drastically).

I think this Investopedia summary pretty interesting:
So it sounds like even economists, professionals in this question, have conflicting views. Perhaps there's no single answer.
Increasing minimum wage doesn't seem to help fight inflation, and I don't see how it could. What it can do is try to help the most vulnerable people suffer from the inflation less. But it's unclear whether such decisions have a negative impact either, because even though it seems that they should, in practice they might not.

12. Alexander Volkanovski
11. Robert Whittaker
10. Ian Machado Garry
9. Merab Dvalishvili
8. Anthony Hernandez
7. Amanda Lemos
6. Marcos Rogerio de Lima
5. Rinya Nakamura
4. Brendson Ribeiro
3. Josh Quinlan
2. Oban Elliott
1. Miranda Maverick

NOT go the Full Distance 9