The world's economy has seen its share of some pretty rough times, and with that, inflation and poor wage changes in employment have made most start to squirm. With the latest reports, though, it is now that inflation has somewhat eased in 2024, while consumer spending still holds the key, whereas job growth slackened. It simply means a regular income is of primary importance at least from the point of view of salary, so that one may deal with these economic uncertainties.

Self-sufficiency can have its own kind of risks. Starting one's own business or freelancing does sound nice but might include other kinds of challenges such as 'uneven' income and no benefits. It might be wiser, with the economy showing its signs of stabilization in certain sectors, to mix in a few jobs that are stable with side hustles or skill-building rather than giving up salaries altogether. It's all about balance, considering we are not out of the woods economically just yet.

The reality is there has been huge profits for the defense contractors-including Lockheed Martin in light of increased military spending. For instance, record military budgets are now recorded throughout NATO countries, with more than 20 members likely to meet their respective target of 2% of GDP for the defense budget. For one thing, this is not exactly the same money taken out and lent back, because military spending is another budget, and when countries take loans, they usually are from global financial institutions, not directly from the defense contractors.

But yes, you do have a point in that aspect of an increasing financial burden: growing military expenses because of conflicts like Ukraine; smaller economies may not be able to balance military spending with other priorities in terms of finance. It does not mean that the system is so contrived as to exploit these countries financially, but surely, choices have to be made that will pit security against financial stability.

While the Shanghai's Court recognized Bitcoin for its uniqueness and consequently qualified it as personal property, the ruling was not an official policy turnabout, let alone a return of crypto trading to China. The government was stiff on the ban against crypto, and institutional investors were further away from adopting it. The very strong stance taken on cryptocurrencies by the Chinese government is, in itself, a big obstacle. Even with such legal recognitions, one would expect that the Communist Party will keep such a tight grip on regulation, especially when it comes to finance. hence, the general diffusion of Bitcoin in China might still be far off for the foreseeable future. While the court ruling lends certain legal legitimacy to Bitcoin as property, it is far from opening the doors for full-scale trading or mining.

AML regulation generally target exchanges and centralized services, making it more difficult for bad actors to use crypto for illegal means such as money laundering. In fact, most people in the industry support such rules, because these can build trust that could help crypto gain wider adoption long-term.

Said that, Bitcoin as such is still decentralized. The core protocol is not under the control of any government or entity. We still can use Bitcoin in a decentralized manner if you're interacting straight with the blockchain, using peer-to-peer transactions. Again, that is a challenge to deal with, privacy versus regulatory compliance. But, as we have seen, the industry is in a flux, and some sets of regulations, like the ones in the European Union's MiCA framework, actually encourage more crypto adoption while keeping safety concerns important.

I'm really very sorry to hear about what's been happening with your brother. Of course, there's a slim outside chance that some of the funds might be recoverable, especially if the hacker passed them through OKX, as OKX usually investigates funds that are in one way or another connected to hacks or scams. They have frozen accounts in such cases, even during the FTX hack. You might want to contact OKX support without any further ado and provide all the evidence that you can gather, such as the transaction record or wallet address of this hacker. As for Bitcoin, it is hard to trace, especially if this Bitcoin hasn't moved to this date, but trying some blockchain explorers would do great. You can also go to the police and file a complaint, and get the services of a cybersecurity expert. Keep pushing, maybe then the exchange will cooperate.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ftx-hacker-reportedly-transfers-a-portion-of-stolen-funds-to-okx-after-using-bitcoin-mixer
https://dailycoin.com/coordinated-okx-hack-puts-users-on-high-alert-heres-why/

That's one fear many businesses have, that such drops in price will strongly hit their ability to restock or cover expenses. Using crypto payment processors-much like those instantly converting Bitcoin for a stablecoin or fiat-makes sense. This reduces the risk of holding volatile assets and ensures you have stable money to run your business. It further helps merchants balance the benefits that come with accepting crypto without the downside of price fluctuations.

Diversify the money you have in Bitcoin, get part of your money now into stablecoins or fiat for currently existing business needs and keep the rest of the funds in Bitcoin in your account in anticipation of growing its price. You will have both stability and the opportunity to go upwards according to market conditions. This is a case of flexibility and security whereby you are able to receive crypto payments without fully exposing your business to the volatility of the market.

I think people need to act very differently, when they buy Bitcoin as an investment and when they received Bitcoin as payment for their business. I didn't say that they can't do both at the same time, but the need to separate the fund.

I understand that the current financial system is not the best, but predicting its full collapse by January 2025 is a bit of a stretch. Central banks are gearing up for some changes, like unveiling new rules on crypto exposure by 2025, but they are not getting rid of the whole system. They simply cap the crypto holdings of banks at 2% to keep things stable, not as a signal for collapse. The idea is to make the crypto usable responsibly while retaining a sound banking backbone.

Also, many experts recognize a "fragile" financial system, but that does not imply it will fall to pieces over one day. Perhaps Bitcoin will shine bright in a more "pro-liquidity" environment come 2025, but it is not going to eradicate traditional banking overnight. It will be more like a slow and steady evolution, not complete collapse.

I suppose OP is right that BlackRock wants more transparency, ensuring that when Bitcoin is purchased with its ETF, the ownership is directly on-chain. Given the reputation of BlackRock, it is expected from them to set higher standards in how Coinbase handles custody. That may be a signal that the practice by Coinbase is getting more scrutiny, especially with their plan to launch "Coinbase WBTC," which raised even more concerns  .

I totally agree that we should avoid leaving funds on centralized exchanges like Coinbase. All this push for faster on-chain settlement does seem to come together with the greater crypto philosophy of self-custody. If BlackRock is concerned, that could indicate much larger issues later on for Coinbase. In all probability, yes, moving assets off exchanges into personal wallets where we got full custody, especially when one is not trading actively, it is the only best way.

While strategic planning has immense importance for economic development, it is not the ultimate instant fix. Most countries, like Niger and Senegal, are still moving ahead with the increase in their production and export, especially oil and agriculture, even as political struggles have been continuous. Be that as it may, there would be a realization that planning is not merely sufficient. Most African countries are still struggling with issues of governance, climate change, and trade imbalances-issues none of which requires just a blueprint to see changes take place. As a matter of fact, absent the resolution of such issues, the best-laid schemes can easily fall by the wayside. If strategic planning is ever to leave its dent, it must pair with great leadership, accountability, and real-time problem solving.

As far as I know at least in my local banks especially, for most banks, asking to take out money in stablecoin may not be practical at this juncture in time. While the notion of stablecoins has been increasingly becoming more popular, even to the point of possible regulation, most banks don't currently deal in them. Maybe a new bill could push banks into the stablecoin space, but that's not quite here yet.

On the other hand however, the question of not having access to your own money is one of basic fairness, but also one of liquidity and stability in the banking system. The stablecoins themselves are not without risk, they have faced problems like investor "runs" in market upsets, as illustrated by the implosion of Terra last year. While the idea of stablecoins is a furtherance, they are simply not quite the answer for mainstream banking at this juncture.

It is not that easy to dump the US dollar with no consequences or even to think that the U.S. would do nothing if that were to be attempted. The dollar remains involved in more than 88% of global currency exchanges and 59% of worldwide central bank reserves. As much as there's been a call for de-dollarization-for instance, the BRICS countries trading amongst themselves in their respective currencies-it becomes an uphill task to rival the dollar in terms of liquidity and stability. The simple act of abandoning the dollar completely would severely disrupt world trade, especially in countries whose economies largely depend on the stability of the dollar for trade.

But I think that even if BRICS ever creates its currency, it would not overnight steal the dollar's crown. Again, a move to newer, untested currencies and volatile economies is fraught with risk. Even when large shifts may be seen, the U.S. could still impose sanctions or use economic leverage to affect nations attempting to jettison the dollar entirely.

Investments in Bitcoin have both pros and cons depending on a person's ability to withstand the risk and the prevailing market conditions. DCA divides the time plan for investments thereby mitigating exposure to risks associated with purchasing Bitcoin at its apex. In the course of history, it has been proven that such a strategy lowers the highs and the lows which invariably means that wealth can be built in a more certain manner over the long term especially in the depreciation phases. It has been noted that even though this approach is very modest in terms of investment protection, its DCA investor strategy has won the DCA investor strategy on few occasions by a whopping percentage of 668% between 2018 and 2024.

On the other hand, lump-sum investing may give better results in very short bull market stages as price increases tremendously. For instance, in the period of 2018-2024 described above, the return of a lump-sum investment reached a phenomenal 1527%. The most important thing about investing for a long time using DCA is it is considered less risky and suitable to those who are committed to investing all the time, It encourages an investor to buy and sell at the right time to take advantage of the gains but increases vulnerability to short term market drops on the other hand.

https://alphasquared.io/bitcoin-lump-sum-vs-dca/

In my opinion both Hotel and Bitcoin in 2024 is a feasible investment, but they require different appetites for risk. The hotel industry, especially the luxury and select-service sub-sectors, will continue to outperform with high liquidity and strong investor demand, especially in urban centers. This makes hotel investment appealing for those seeking stable, long-term returns.

On the opposite of hotels investment, Bitcoin may be volatile but has long-term possibilities. The returns may never see that spectacular growth which was seen some years ago; however, Bitcoin is considered a force against inflationary pressures and unpayable government debt. Not last but least, if one does not shy away from risk, then hotels may be more stable in rewarding Bitcoin at higher returns.

I do agree that even a well-designed product or service might be at a loss without proper marketing. That is indeed quite often the case, at least in the gaming and app worlds. The situation you described with the Telegram game does align with what's happening today in mobile game marketing. Such small or even medium-sized games invest in solid UI/UX but don't hit on the proper marketing strategies, hence their growth becomes stalled. That is pretty common-to see how some games get stuck at a low engagement level, though there are tonnes of followers on board.

When game developers collaborate with the right influencers or ad partner it more likely to have super-wild growth in just a few days. Equally significant, though, is a concrete, continuous content strategy that keeps those new followers coming back. Quick wins are cool, but to retain interest requires steady, thoughtful engagement. That just goes to show that good marketing can sometimes be more crucial than the product itself in today's world of visibility and growth.

Not the best scenario for Bitcoin to go mainstream, but it still nice to see that some Judges appear to learn about crypto a little more, as evidenced by this judgment regarding the return of $1.2 million worth of Bitcoin. The judgment from the court in British Columbia shows basic contract law still applies, even with Bitcoin loans and could be one solid precedent for the future.

It is encouraging that courts are finally catching up with the crypto space, but then again, it exposes the other side of the coin which is how complex the crypto space is and can therefore confuse some people into signing a deal like this. That's a good reminder for those using Bitcoin in any kind of transaction or legal agreement to ensure solid contracts in order not to face legal misfiring at some point.

I personally disagree that certain Bitcoin mined in certain block is special, this whole rare sats is a very speculative market, more like an art business rather than cryptocurrency or even investment. The price range of a single rare sats is extremely wide, like how the Block 9 Satoshis have been selling between $6 and $1,100.  https://magisat.io/category/activity/b9-450

Besides my personal opinion the whole concept of these sats being "seriously valuable" is still pretty debatable even in the collectible community. Christie's and Sotheby's have featured some, but mainstream appeal and liquidity simply are not as developed as other collectibles or NFTs. Worth being cautious, not jumping in purely out of FOMO without considering how niche this market still is. Investing in rare sats might take longer to see real returns, and the hype doesn’t always match the market stability right now.

OP is right that so many of our consumption behaviors are driven by marketing, including the shift to sugar-free products. Yet, this trend also plays to very legitimate consumer concerns about health. Large numbers of people now actively seek out low-sugar or sugar-free products, impelled by increasing awareness of the health risks associated with sugar consumption. This shift is less about marketing manipulation and more about real health priorities; sugar reduction has overtaken fat reduction in many respects.

That being said, manufacturers have taken full advantage of this demand, unveiling new sugar substitutes and zero-calorie products in recent times, which market a full range of products. Whereas this phenomenon is health-conscious consumers, it cannot be also denied that businesses are using intelligent marketing to push these products and reach the broader audience. While there is a little marketing here, it is a response to what has been an evolving consumer trend toward healthier choices.

I don't know whether OP is joking or actually want a serious discussion, but I will response seriously. So, OP has an interesting idea, but then it runs into a number of problems, especially in comparison to more established systems such as Bitcoin's PoW. One of the core decentralization properties required for cryptocurrencies is that no single entity ends up in control of more than a certain percentage of the network. The fixed list of nodes is pretty vulnerable to that.

Centralization and Sybil attacks are among the major risks here. For instance, if an attacker controls a large number of those fixed nodes, one may even manipulate the results of the transactions. That's why PoW design avoids this-the shifting of computing power rather than a fixed set of nodes so as to be more resistant against such kind of attacks.

Also, in PoW, there is a way to solve the problem of double spending since miners would need actually to spend a lot for the validation of the transactions. Furthermore, the proposed system of sending the private key directly can be vulnerable if some nodes are compromised. While simplification is always tempting, it is the balance of security and decentralization in systems like Bitcoin that explains why big parts have worked until today.

I hope that this is still on the context of this discussion, but many mining farms are increasingly powered by hydropower, wind, or solar energy, which helps reduce the environmental impact. If anything, some estimates have it that over 50% of Bitcoin mining globally uses renewable energy.
https://cryptoslate.com/more-than-50-of-bitcoin-mining-uses-renewable-energy/

Thus, while the energy comparison is interesting, it must be put into context that miners and, in fact, the entire industry are striving towards sustainability over time. Moreover, the very drastic comparison of Bitcoin mining to a nuclear event may make this sound like a strident case, while in fact, the actual context of the use of energy due to mining itself varies across regions and sources of energy, turning out to be way more nuanced than the raw figures themselves suggest.

While OP is true, most African governments were very late to embrace Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. However, the situation has clearly started to change of late. Crypto usage is increasing in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, with increased usage for remittances and peer-to-peer transactions. Most of these adoptions have been fuelled by the underdeveloped financial infrastructure and the dire need to have more adequate and accessible means of payment. This is because, for instance, 57% of Sub-Saharan Africa's population is unbanked; crypto-and mainly Bitcoin-is a real alternative for attaining financial inclusion.

But it is not all a question of opposition by government. Most of these countries are still cagey because of the volatile nature of crypto and the attendant risks. For instance, the Central Bank of Kenya warned against Bitcoin, citing its speculative value. In spite of that, its value went through the roof, with local currencies like the Kenyan Shilling losing their value. While it would seem that governments delayed the adoption, this was more about concerns with regulation rather than deliberate sabotage.

With this, we increasingly see more stablecoins and a deeper exploration of blockchain systems, especially in South Africa, where even studies are being conducted on stablecoins for their benefits in boosting digital payments. This could mean that very soon, crypto will be way more integrated into the mainstream financial systems.