I was never in such a bad situation, but there was a time when I was just getting into the crypto market, when Bitcoin was crucial for me to be able to buy food, and I was a full-time student, so finding a different job was very hard. But I did need to pay the bills and rent a flat back then, which was partially why I was in somewhat of a struggle. I'm really happy that you managed to change your financial situation, I understand that escaping poverty (breaking the cycle of poverty, especially) is a very hard thing to do.
But when possible, I do think a person should earn money on a regular basis instead of fully relying on profits from long-term holding.

That's a nice thread because it gives an idea of how losing a seed usually happens, and also shows that, thankfully, the majority of people here have never lost their seeds.
I can say that I haven't lost any BTC, so I haven't lost access to my money, but I think I have lost my seed once or twice because of forgetting where to find it. But I was using a wallet with a password, so I could still access my funds, and then just create a new wallet and write everything down this time. Maybe I just got lucky, but I generally consider myself a fairly responsible and careful person.

The richest people do have a lot of power and can influence politics, but I think it's a vast overstatement to say that they can change anything they wish to change in a country. Also, they aren't the most powerful in a country, unless a country has a very weak political system. There's the president, the prime minister, institutions like the parliament, which are likely to be more powerful than rich individuals.
Now, I've checked the net worth of all the individuals listed by the op. They're all billionaires, but the amount is usually less than $5 billion. CZ is an exception with $15 billion, but he might lose a lot because of criminal investigations. In any case, all the top-10 have over $100 billion net worth, so none of these are even close yet.

If Grayscale actually sold as much BTC recently, I think it's a very interesting case for us. Grayscale has been selling over January, and the article says that more than $4 billion worth of coins have been sold since January 11. The price dropped from $48k to less than $39k over the course of almost two weeks, so almost by 20%. But it's already around $42k, so around it's currently down by around 13% from the pre-sale price. That's the kind of power a strong organization and billions of dollars currently have on the price. Somewhat significant, but also very temporary. I do agree that $118 million worth of coins is nothing compared to this.

Hm, that's a surprisingly difficult question. Perhaps the problem is with the word "support" which can mean so many things. Another issue is with supporting Bitcoin as a currency (whether the op means to emphasize Bitcoin as money vs Bitcoin as an asset or is just stating as a fact that Bitcoin is a currency). I agree with replies about El Salvador and the gambling industry, as well as about this forum. I'm sure there are also crypto lobbyists that work on convincing the legislators to legalize Bitcoin in various countries, which, I suppose, should count as support. In a way, any business that accepts Bitcoin supports it as a currency.
I tried looking for NGOs that promote Bitcoin, but I only found info about organizations that accept donations in Bitcoin, rather than those dedicated to Bitcoin as a cause.

Like a few other people, I want to say I'm not sure what the op's main point is. I understand all the words, but I find it hard to grasp how they come together.
The way I understand it, the post is about how much a person should rely on oneself vs how much should be expected from the government/society, and the op's position is that people should rely on themselves.
To that, I'd say that it's good to rely on oneself in general, but I believe it depends on the kind of economy a person lives in. If it's a country with very centralized economy and restrictions, then relying on oneself can put a person in a very difficult position, perhaps lead to imprisonment. If it's a social welfare kind of country, I think it's okay to rely on the country for some support and services when they are needed, and if it's a more traditional capitalist country, it's okay to be upset about how much is in the hands of corporations. So different behaviour is appropriate in different countries, and different economies offer different opportunities.

There are indeed a lot of strategies here. I think the most common option I've seen is using a payment system that instantly converts the payment back to fiat. This way, a customer can pay in Bitcoin, but the business gets fiat and keeps everything in fiat. Some, of course, allow themselves a little diversification, keeping some funds in Bitcoin and considering it an investment. That can also work quite well, considering that Bitcoin tends to eventually recover from the bear markets. I've also seen some companies keeping their budget in Bitcoin, but those were small businesses, and I do think that's too risky.

Companies have been trying to get an ETF approval for many years, so there's been a lot of time to put Bitcoin under scrutiny. I think that this market just opens up new opportunities, makes Bitcoin attractive to investors who deal with traditional investments like those the op mentioned. Bitcoin will remain appealing to all those who were with it before the ETF approval, and it can start being appealing to new people. Some might shy away from it, but that's not a problem.
Decentralization isn't a myth, Bitcoin isn't a meme investment, so the risk of that disenchantment happening seems low to me.

The growth wasn't necessarily due to supply shock, as you put it. Growth seems to happen after halving, but not immediately after it, and perhaps it can't even be directly attributed to it. It can be just FOMO due to being reminded that fewer and fewer coins are entering the total supply, or just increased demand because of some Bitcoin cycles taking a certain period of time. It's not so easy to measure, and there haven't been many halvings to say that it's a strong correlation. Halvings will keep happening, but I think Bitcoin would grow by 2028 even if the halvings stopped all of a sudden.

I agree with what others are pointing out in the thread, but I think in a matter like this, the more points and posts you get, the more convincing it becomes. Nobody knows the future, so nobody can guarantee sure profit and accurately predict the price. Thankfully, the charts of the price so far a widely available, and there are various patterns people spotted, about which you can read online. You can clearly see the long-term upward trend, which makes a long-term investment in Bitcoin look safe, but the trend can change at any point, and nobody can predict when it happens.

Hm, the op's asking a pretty tough question. I think the two (manufacturing capabilities and resources) are related, but that it also depends on the type of export. They're related about without resources, you're unlikely to be able to build factories and other infrastructure to manufacture certain things. Also, by manufacturing a lot, both for trade and domestic use, you can get more resources for your economy.
But that also depends on a type of exports and situation. China, clearly, in an example of manufacturing capabilities. But it's harder with the UK earlier. Their main exports were cotton and woollen goods, iron and steel. Let's also not forget about opium. I'm not sure if I'd call all of it manufacturing. Cotton is something you grow, but clothes are manufactured. Opium was also grown, but in the colonies.
I'd say that with the UK, it was imperial resources first, manufacturing second.

I agree with hugeblack that those particularly upset with how Bitcoin is doing probably had really high hopes for the bull market right following an ETF approval, which didn't happen. I did not expect ETF approvals to happen so fast, so I didn't expect a bull market so early either. My guess, based on time frames between ATH points and how long it took to get there after bear markets in the past, is that we can expect recovery in Q4 of 2024.
Op has a good point about recoveries not happening in the past prior to halving events, but it's also true that we haven't had many of those to say that it's a statistically significant fact, I believe.

The op is taking about scams, fake Airdrops and influencers as if it's something new, it seems. But this has been going on for many years now (at least since the original ICO craze of 2017), and I hope that most people in the crypto industry are aware of these risks.
There's no need to rush with investment, and there's no need to invest a lot all at once. There are always more opportunities later during bear markets, even if someone doesn't feel confident enough to invest right now. And there are strategies with DCA for regular small investments, so that it doesn't feel like one big decision and can happen more gradually.
I agree with those pointing out that greed can be a major factor here, and I believe greed is a vice worth getting rid of in general, not just when it comes to crypto investments. While working on reducing greed, one should also cultivate virtues, such as moderation and patience.

Game 1:  26, 23'
Game 2:  26, 28'

I wanted to understand more, and I actually came across a different name and publication history, linking the chart with George Tritch (who extended the original Benner's forecast up to 2059, it seems). There are a lot of articles from unpopular media outlets, and the best (the most reputable) I could find was this comprehensive article on the Telegraph.
While the chart has the right to exist, I think it's hard to assess its accuracy because it depends on which things we're looking for. It's easy to find evidence that will support the chart, but that would also be stretching it in come cases. As for Bitcoin, for example, the chart isn't accurate. So which assets should count, and is there a way to really test it? Something vague enough for people to indulge in confirmation bias often gets very popular, but it doesn't mean it's trustworthy.
What people often get wrong in such cases is that they start out looking for confirmations, while the scientific method should push them to do the opposite and ask a question of whether it's possible to prove it wrong. If it's vague enough to be impossible to prove it wrong, it's not scientifically accurate.

Upon reading it, I decided to compare it with the US debt-to-GDP ratio, and yeah, it's a huge difference. People have been saying that the US debt is catastrophic, when there's clearly a #2 economy that has a much worse situation, and apparently has had it worse for over a decade if we consider this specific factor. But, while it's steadily growing, it's harder to estimate the impact of it, just like in the case of the US. Some keep saying it'll crash the economy, but years go by without that happening. It's not good, for sure, but whether it will make a huge negative impact on China's economy short-term remains to be seen.

As much as I like Bitcoin, I don't think it can replace the traditional banking system. Bitcoin is a good alternative, something that can allow people to bypass banks in many ways. But Bitcoin doesn't come with assurances that the money will be safe, doesn't come with centralized responsibility for funds (and someone people can blame if things go wrong), doesn't come with customer support, loans, insurances, etc. So while it's an alternative, it doesn't cover all the things that banks do. More importantly, banks have established themselves over the years, and a lot of people trust them.

Not every dip requires an explanation. Bitcoin is a volatile asset, its price can't be regulated and can't be controlled. The interest in buying and selling Bitcoin naturally fluctuates, and that causes the price to go up or down. There's also a phenomenon called a correction, which is a way of an asset's price adjusting after being overvalued due to hype or something like that. So what we see now is Bitcoin's correction. It will stop, Bitcoin can easily recover from that later, and it doesn't matter in the long run. A correction doesn't need triggers, it can happen naturally after growth.

I believe that kind of concern is not specific to Bitcoin, it applies to any kind of money/wealth a person has. I'm certainly not wealthy, and I try not to think about robberies. Money or any sort is not a #1 priority to me, so of course I value my life and the lives of others higher than my BTC or any kind of money. I wouldn't resist, I wouldn't try to play dumb or do anything like that. If it's a life-threatening situation, I would give access to any money that I have, provided that the robbers already know about it or suspect it. Life and well-being is something hard to make more of, unlike money.

Maybe to some, procrastination applies to any kind of activity, but to me, it's only something that happens when I dread the task, when I don't want to get to it because I have negative feelings or some worries associated with it. Buying Bitcoin is certainly not one of those things to me, but I can understand that some might feel worried about privacy, losing access to their coins by accident, falling a victim to a scam, etc. In that case, finding ways of coping with fears can help to get to the relevant tasks in time.
I'm happy the op found the way with a journal, but perhaps the methods depend on a person and the underlying causes of procrastination.