There are no perfect options. To me, the options that rely heavily on banks, and multiple banks, no less, are risky because there can be a robbery, bankruptcy, destruction of property due to a natural disaster etc. If the seed phrase also remains at home, what's the point of it being in the banks? A physical copy at home might be accidentally found by someone else. The second option has a seed phrase entered into a password manager, which sounds really unsafe to me.
I believe that apart from the risk of being hacked, a person should also consider the risk of locking oneself out of the wallet because of the complications of storing the seed phrase.

I haven't heard this one, but let's look at the bright side: it's a much more environmentally friendly lifestyle, and healthier too
Gambling losses are a common thing, but there are different ways of looking at them. If a person just keeps losing and getting frustrated, it means that it's problem gambling, perhaps an addiction. If a person only gambles recreationally, spending only what one can afford to lose, gambling is a way of having fun and would not lead to issues like losing a car or a house. So it's simply important to keep things under control and seek professional help if necessary.

The op's post could really use some structure and punctuation. More than 5 lines of text as a single sentence sounds more like a stream of consciousness than coherent thoughts to me.
If someone invested a long time ago when the price was, say, below $1k, Bitcoin could be a very simple investment that doesn't require monitoring and discipline. If one has strong enough faith that Bitcoin will reach huge heights in the future, one can simply buy and wait for many years without doing anything else even now.
It might make a person poorer if there comes a time when this person really needs the money and is forced to sell BTC during a bear market. Patience and a long-term perspective are good points, but situations vary, and people should account for that.

I didn't know that there were terms for such differences, but I like the idea. I'm certainly a person who falls under the growth mindset category. I've always believed that there's so much a person can do to improve that the genetic and/or early development side of things should be taken less seriously. Of course, there are mental disabilities which are uncurable, so some people are unable to catch up with peers in such cases, but that's a small minority.
But I'm not sure about the overall setup. A person with a growth mindset can struggle with anxiety and this find it difficult to embrace challenges. A person with a fixed mindset can believe that their IQ is very high and they have innate talent, so they are bound to achieve things in life. In practice, it might give them a lot of confidence and motivation.

It feels like the op's post is a bit too enthusiastic about ransomware cyber criminals. I appreciate it that they don't physically hurt people to rob companies, but they're still criminals, and them using Bitcoin doesn't help its reputation (even though it's unfair to blame Bitcoin in this case). I can see articles claiming that the usage of Bitcoin is very common for ransomware attacks, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. For example, this academic paper claims that, since transactions are done via Bitcoin, and then criminals need to cash them out, it's often possible to trace and track down these activities.
I can also see that there are cyber ransomware insurance companies for those who want protection against this kind of situation, which I believe makes sense if it's a rich company or individual.

I wish Jack remained the leading figure of Twitter, to be honest. I understand that he's now moving on to new things, but I think they'll be significantly less impactful. Raising millions sounds like a big deal, but is that truly enough for such an ambitious project?
To me, it looks more like a small thing that will provide an alternative for miners, but won't change the overall climate. The idea sounds cool, but I'm just not sure that the scale of the project, considering the budget, is anywhere enough to actually reshape Bitcoin mining.

It's important to have a visionary to build something fresh and strong, and initially a visionary can in practice be a CEO. But a visionary may or may not have strong management skills, abilities to make people feel welcome and valued in the company, and even focus on the business goals (because perhaps this person cares about doing the best possible thing and isn't being realistic). So, depending on a particular case, it can be wise to appoint a professional CEO, so to speak, to take the practical side of things into their hands, while the visionary can remain an inspiration and representation of the company.

Op's story is very tragic, a lot of money was lost. To me, it seems like there might be an addiction problem here, considering the losses involved and losing one time after another without stopping.
Addiction is a serious problem, that may require professional help.
The good news is that if you managed to earn a lot before, perhaps you can do it again. However, it's important to make a plan on how to make sure you don't lose the money again. Maybe there's someone you deeply trust, someone who can manage the funds. Maybe there are other more relevant ways of dealing with it. Good luck!

To be honest, I see this event in a different light. The SEC doesn't want to face the heat after another rejection of a serious company at the point of huge pressure upon it to rethink its position. So the easiest thing for them to do is to postpone a decision, which makes them look as if they are open to eventually accepting an application while also not committing them to doing so.
It's wonderful if the pressure eventually leads to change, but I still have my doubts about it. Because for all the talk that an approval is around the corner, it hasn't happened yet.

Game 1:  28, 17'
Game 2:  28, 32'
Game 3:  28, 25'

13. Beneil Dariush
12. Jalin Turner
11. Rob Font
10. Sean Brady
9. Punahele Soriano
8. Joaquim Silva
7. Julia Avila
6. Cody Brundage
5. Joe Solecki
4. Melquizael Costa
3. Rodolfo Bellato
2. Wellington Turman
1. Veronica Hardy

NOT go the Full Distance 4

1. Garcia
2. Round 12
3. 1

Black Friday is a thing in my country, but it's a relatively small thing. It's what companies push, advertising their discounted prices, but it's not popular among the people (we don't have crazy queues of people overshopping at that time, for instance).
From what I've seen, some businesses do offer actual discounts on products, but there's also this thing that you might buy something because of a discount that you would not have bought otherwise, so you're not exactly winning there. I didn't use BTC this time and I spent a very modest amount of money on something I was considering buying anyway.

I like Electrum, it's a reputable wallet. It's non-custodial, so nobody has access to your funds but you. I'd say it's very safe, but there are still things to watch out for. #1 is that you need to make sure that you don't lose your passphrase because you can lock yourself out of the wallet this way and no customer support would be able to help you. Another thing is that, if you don't have a password on your wallet (so it opens without any obstacles on your PC), you need to make sure that your PC is safe from prying eyes. Using a password can be annoying, but it also protects against that.

Even though solar storms don't feel like a common topic, I think this matter was recently discussed on the forum. A solar storm strong enough to fully take out the Internet isn't very likely, from what I've read. And if it happens, there are going to be much bigger problems than lack of access to Bitcoin. Lots of people work online, the essence of huge businesses if fully online. Apart from that, it would probably mean severe lack of electricity, so gadgets mainly not working, hospitals struggling to keep people on life support and in reanimation from dying etc. There are fuel generators that could be used here and there for businesses, schools, and hospitals (I'm talking from experience of blackouts last winter and how people dealt with them in practice). However, there's likely to be a shortage of those very fast in such an event.
So Bitcoin would temporarily be unusable, but once everything is restored, I think it would eventually recover from the losses.

I'm not sure what the op means by fixing fiat, to be honest. I can see the info about Nigeria, but these issues aren't universal.
Some countries have major issues with fiat, like hyperinflation or just high inflation. But there are many examples of fiat currencies that have been doing quite well for a long time (if 0-5% of annual inflation is considered 'well' because that's the aim of many fiat currencies). Moreover, some would say that the problem of fiat is that it can be printed and destroyed at a whim of authorities. Others might add that the key issue of fiat is that it is no longer backed up by truly valuable assets. So, according to different people, fixing fiat would mean very different things.
As for ignoring Bitcoin, I think it's already pretty common, as active opposition to Bitcoin is an approach undertaken by a minority of countries. But some cannot allow themselves to ignore Bitcoin because they see it as a direct threat to their control over their population (as is the case in China).

Not having to deal with any lawsuits can be a major reason for Satoshi to hide true identity because an anonymous creator cannot face charges. In hindsight, it looks like it was a very wise decision, even if that wasn't the main consideration of Satoshi.
Other potential reasons might be untimely death, true devotion to decentralization (and thus not wanting to be at the centre of Bitcoin), high value of privacy (to avoid being followed by people from the media, being scrutinized and targeted, etc.). Whatever the reason is, I think we should respect it and should not try to find and out Satoshi.

4 BTC is a very decent amount but not enough to actually cover one's life forever, not at the current price. Lucky for him, he doesn't need to sell all BTC at once, so it's not really a dilemma. I think the op's friend should explore what he wants to do with his life, what kind of career he wants to pursue. Bitcoin can be a safety net, so that he doesn't need to worry if he's running short on rent, is fired from his job, or really wants to quit his job without having found a different one. It's okay to spend a little to treat oneself and one's loved ones. But early 20s is a great time to figure out what one wants from life, and it would be a shame not to do it just because of having some money from Bitcoin.

As others have pointed out repeatedly, referrals are things that businesses use. Bitcoin isn't a company, it isn't a business. Does the USD have referrals? Does it bother you that it doesn't? But even looking at the stock market: does S&P 500 have referral codes? Referrals are just one way of attracting people, and there's no necessity in them at all. The history of BTC price clearly shows that people don't need referrals to invest in it.
Also, to me, referral codes are often actually a red flag, a sign of scam because referral programs are often used in financial pyramids. So I'm happy there are no Bitcoin referrals.

I'm happy that there's someone from this community who is working on such a book. I like the cover and wish the author success.
I'm not a designer, so perhaps I'm very wrong on this point, but it feels a little overly bright to me. There's lots of bright orange, and then there's white text on orange background, black text on white, white text on black. Black text on different shades of gray etc.
I also think that, for a book like this, you should hire an academic editor (someone with great expertise on Bitcoin and its history) to proofread the text for potential mistakes, even if you're quite an expert on it yourself because it's important to get everything right, and a fresh pair of trained eyes could be very helpful with that.