I like academic papers because they add a certain degree of credibility to discussions. The authors are postulating a positive moderate correlation between cryptos overall most of the time, with stronger correlation following undesirable critical events (Mt Gox bankruptcy, the pandemic announcement, Tesla stopping accepting BTC as payment, etc.). That being said, the impact of corrections takes a short period of time, so long-term benefits are still possible.
As for the point about centrality measures being effective for price predictions, I must admit that part was too technical to me, so perhaps I misunderstood it. Am I correct that it's not about predicting what Bitcoin will cost in 6 months, for example, but more about how a price change in one of the key cryptos can impact the prices of other currencies?

It's a neat infographic, thanks for sharing! Bitcoin is indeed the best-performing asset 8 years out of 11, which is very impressive. But I do believe it matters that it was also the worst-performing asset in the other three years, and with a huge difference between it and the closest worst-performing competitor. It's probably those years, in which Bitcoin loses over a half of its value, that are scary to some investors and make Bitcoin seem like a very risky asset. Unlike some other options on the list, it can lead to huge losses in an unlucky year, and some just can't handle that pressure.

How much the state taxes the citizens and how much they get in return depends strongly on a country. In my country, people have been losing their purchasing power for over a decade, but there is a strong objective reason for it: a much bigger country waging a war against us. Then there's corruption, which is a big issue. But I think we don't have progressive taxes, so people normally pay the same (at least, when it comes to income tax). Also, the tax authorities are very lax, so a huge amount of people don't pay their taxes or pay way less than they're supposed to. As for the social support, we have free basic medical care for everyone, free higher education (highly accessible with around 50% studying for free), and very cheap public transport throughout the nation.
Investing in support for citizens is a great idea, and I agree that countries usually don't do enough of that. As for taxing the poor, in my country they are taxed, but overall I think it's very unfair and unproductive. If a person is barely making ends meet, taxes make a huge negative impact on that person's life. In the meantime, this money is almost nothing for the state, as these people have very small salaries anyway and thus the amount they pay in taxes is miniscule (for the state, but not for the poor).

Bitcoin was big without the ETFs. NFTs have a market capitalization of almost $75 billion, and Bitcoin NFT market has a value of $1 billion. My point is, even though ETFs got a lot of attention and can be considered successful, $800 million is much less than the numbers I've just shared regarding other crypto initiatives. So it's inaccurate to say that the ETFs are the only ones that rose to prominence, as the op put it.
Also, you have a false dilemma there with a God-given destiny vs invisible market manipulations. NFTs had powerful but not invisible actor behind them that were pushing for their approval, and it makes sense that, once approved, they've found their market.

That's nice stats, showing that Bitcoin is bigger than some might think. Bitcoin also has a bigger capitalization than Facebook and Visa. That being said, I'm not sure that it's right to compare companies, assets, and cryptocurrencies, putting everything from gold to banks and supermarket chains into one big list.
For instance, while JPMorgan Chase has a market capitalization below $600 billion, they had $3.4 trillion worth of assets under management at the end of 2023. Or, if we take Visa, its marketcap is also below $600 billion, but it powers over 4 billion cards globally, while if we estimate the rough amount of Bitcoin users, we get under 500 million, even by generous estimates. So one could reasonably ask why we're focusing on marketcap while there are other crucial factors.

Well, with Russia's imperialism, it doesn't sound too unlikely that WW3 is somewhere around the corner. But with all of that playing with fire that the USA has been doing for decades with the USD and especially over the last few years, I must say that the currency is doing really well. Inflation rate is low, percentage of global foreign currency reserves in the USD is very high (and no other currency is even close to competing with it). Plus, there is some explanation of silver growth in the article you've linked that has nothing to do with USD overprinting or US foreign debt: silver being a key metal for solar panels.

The good thing about Bitcoin is that, unless you're unfortunate enough to live in a country where it's banned, you can invest in it, and it's unlikely that its price will be negatively impacted by your location. Of course, you need to figure out whether you can buy Bitcoin, whether you need to pay taxes, how and where you can buy and sell it, but other than that, it's pretty simple. But when it comes to things like real estate, for example, you can get in big trouble because of living in a region affected by natural disasters, a war, or something else of that sort. This can lead to a crash of the market. So the local environment matters sometimes, but maybe not everywhere and not for everything.

Honestly, some fiat currencies aren't doing that bad. The USD has consistently low inflation rate, aside from a couple of exceptions (and in those cases, it still outperformed most other currencies). But that still means gradually losing money, around 3-4% every year. Cryptos are all very different, so I'd focus just on Bitcoin as the leading crypto. I like that it's very accessible: you don't have to buy a lot, you don't have to commit to it (you can always sell), you can store it yourself, and it has high liquidity, so you can make fast decisions if you need to. The rest of the options (stocks, real estate, etc.) seem less accessible to me: they often require a serious commitment, sometimes the liquidity can be an issue, and you often need a very decent amount of money to start.

I've had some success with altcoins in 2017, but I've also had some failures later, when the altcoin bubble burst and most altcoins never returned to their former price level. So nowadays, I agree that Bitcoin is the safest bet among cryptos, and it seems likely to pay off in the long run. It's more of a question of how much it will pay off and how long one needs to wait for that to happen. There are also other options like gold or, in some cases, even relatively stable fiat like the USD, which can widely outperform local fiat currencies.

I think Bitcoin is moving more and more into the areas of financial assets, and it's getting regulated as such in different countries. That means that Bitcoin is perceived not as a currency, but as something you can own and then sell for profit. This sentiment is common on the forum, and it's of course, attractive to tax authorities because assets are taxed, while currencies are not (income received in currencies is taxed, but the currency itself isn't).
I hope that there will be some solutions to the issue of transaction fee spikes, and that non-custodial wallets will remain legal.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Under
4. Dallas
5. Boston
6. Boston
7. Boston

The US does have its own oil reserves and production. But it also has a long-term relationship with Saudi Arabia going decades into the past. The US needs some partnerships not so much for their economy but for political influence. Still, there is no need and no indication that the US will widely adopt Bitcoin and make it a proper part of their national economy.

Well, not all fiat is equal, so sometimes keeping money in fiat means losing a very significant amount over time due to high inflation. But keeping a decent amount in a currency like the USD makes sense. A part can also be kept in gold, which grows somewhat over time and at least doesn't seem to lose value. And then a part can be in Bitcoin without issues. Keeping all or most funds in Bitcoin is risky, but if there's some diversification, it's okay.

Op, Trump was president till 2021, not 2022, but other than that, I agree with that post. Trump is not pro-Bitcoin, and he demonstrated it multiple times in the past. He is using Bitcoin to get a wider appeal at the upcoming elections, that's all. He can easily get back to his old rhetoric about Bitcoin being risky and the USD being the best once he's elected (if that happens). I believe that some politicians can be genuinely pro-Bitcoin (if they are libertarian, for example), but Trump is not one of those.

Bitcoin was barely known back then and didn't cost much, so people were more open to sharing information about their holdings. But nowadays, even saying you have 1 Bitcoin means you're richer than most people in the world. People don't want to become a target of robbery or scam, and owning Bitcoin can draw attention of tax authorities in some countries as well. So I'm not surprised people aren't eager to share the details.
I can say that I sell regularly, and because of that, I have a very small amount. But I intend to accumulate more.

When you're staking, you are risking the whole amount because you're keeping it on a centralized platform and thus this money is out of your control. DCA is good, and it's directly related to investing. But I think it's much better to do DCA with Bitcoin than memecoins because it's safer this way. Still, it's not the same as having passible income because the price can fluctuate, so you sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose, depending on a coin, a point in time, and when you choose to sell.

Using ICOs as crowdfunding was a popular idea in 2017 and very successful at that time, but since a lot of projects turned out to be scams or just failed to perform well enough and as was outlined in whitepaper and roadmap, they suffered a wave of distrust from which they never fully recovered and probably never will. Then there were NFTs, which some viewed as a great way to support creators, and in some sense it is/was a good way, but there was a lot of disappointment there as well.
So I no longer believe in the viability of using cryptos as a means for crowdfunding, to be honest.

Hm, I've never heard of this wallet, I can't access their website, and it's not easy to find much information about them online. Maybe there is a legit online banking, but this is a fishing website? Or maybe there is no legit Viserbank project. Unfortunately, I think the op was scammed. Not being able to withdraw and not being able to reach support are likely to mean that it was a scam, and probably an exit scam, considering that the website is now offline.
That's why it's important to remember that centralized services are unreliable and risky, even if they look legit at some point.

When it comes to my country, we need to get into certain areas of manufacturing because it's essential for our survival as a country. I initially wrote that we're mainly agricultural, but apparently we are actually 60% service economy.
I do believe that transitioning more to services is still the right idea for most economies, but someone needs to do agriculture and manufacturing, so relying fully on services is very risky.
Even if we look at China that the op mentioned, it actually has a balance: it's nearly 55% services but also almost 40% industry.

Sometimes it depends on who you're dealing with and what kind of culture exists in your country. In my experience, I've signed contracts without involving lawyers, and they turned out okay. In case of work or business-related contracts, I always take time to read them carefully and think about the implications. If something sounds shady to me, I ask for changes in the contract, and if changes aren't implemented and no concessions are made, I refuse to sign. I'm not a lawyer, but I took a couple of law courses at university, and I feel capable to analyse contracts for myself most of the time.
But if it's something very serious and involving big finances, I agree it's better to consult with a lawyer than be sorry later.