I invest in Gold and Bitcoin since both are useful for traders and investors, you just need to know how to work your way through them. As we know, Gold can't give HODLers enough money just as the high price of Bitcoin now, this is why I primarily trade Gold aside from the physical asset that I have and shun holding it. Nonetheless, I've started buying Bitcoin at around $19,000 if I average all my striking points. But now, I only trade it in futures once in a while since the price is discouraging to invest and hold. As for Gold, I trade it daily with online brokers and I can say it is the asset I trade and earn most from in the financial market.

You can see none of them is useless, it just depends on your plan.

Yes, you can invest in Bitcoin at a low price and keep it. By this, you can easily gain x5 of your money in a year plus. But you can't do that with Gold. You are better trading it to earn from it.

I like to respect people's thoughts and opinions. The experts in the financial market field will think differently about Bitcoin and you can't blame them for it. But these days, a lot of them are now shifting grounds because Bitcoin is now behaving better like an asset, and with the gradual relevance it gains, it is a good reason for them to begin to change their stance.

Specifically, about Peter Schiff's regular remarks, I so much agree with him and I must say that he thinks like me. Notwithstanding, every sensible economist who is also futuristic should now be positive about Bitcoin for the obvious reasons around us.

Yes, I accept that if it is full-time trading you are attributing scalping to in your first sentence, and some people are scalping actively all day long. This is one of the reasons why I do not like the trading strategy, it is so demanding and could be tiring, and the risk is also there to say a few. Although it is all about how you plan your scalping trading system and it could even be good for those traders who are busy with their daily jobs, they might scalp when they close for work, and if it is just an hour or two, they can make a good income if they are good at it and also lucky to meet a favourable market condition at that time.

One thing that is certain about scalping which many traders say less of is that it is the trading strategy that can earn the most money for traders. So long as you know how to trade it and also manage your way out in it, you can become thousandaire in hundreds of it in a very few months in terms of the profits you gain from it excluding the capital. But note that it will stress you.

I think I should even revisit scalping these days, it was a heck kind of strategy the last time I tried it. I made money but the stress was too much.

It's commendable that you've witnessed two initial bullish cycles of Bitcoin, nonetheless, the chart can still be more practical proof of what happened than an actual witness. This is because as human beings, we tend to forget the actual that happened and even if we didn't forget it, things that happen at times may be unable to be explained exactly as it is. This is why I would like to point out to you that the bull run witnessed in 2017, it actually started in 2016 and ended in the year just as we witnessed it in 2020 which ended in 2021. Every year of Bitcoin's bull run, the coin has been hitting its ATH, and now it has hit another ATH even before this year's halving, which is a reason for concern for me.

Regardless, I expect the same bullish impact experienced in the past to happen this year after having, which should end in 2025 if the earlier patterns explained serve us right. But we should all get prepared for the worst this time that Bitcoin now resides at upper levels even before halving happened. Could this mean that a twist of events wants to happen even as Bitcoin is gaining more relevance with institutional investors and also with the ETF approval and implementation?

Fine, we can't gamble to survive and a very sensible person should know that because no one can guarantee their winning in it. But it gets worse if we gamble when we are desperate for the money, this can worsen the desperation and we can be frustrated. And as we know frustration, it can lead to anything including deep regret and depression, so it's better we shun a thing like that from the beginning. Gambling is a means to try our luck, we should never forget that, and with the stories I've heard, those who needed urgent money and turned to gambling mostly lost their money.

Maybe just about 2-3% of them scaped it through, and those who engage in this risky quest must have taken a huge risk before the money gained would be commensurate to the huge money expected to be gained. Because no one can turn to gambling for a desperate rescue without setting their mind on the higher benefits from it. Sadly in most cases, it will only take more from them than blessing them if care is not taken. There is nothing better than gambling with the right money and with the right mind, these are the only ways we will not cheat ourselves and be able to manage our portfolio properly.

Finally, I am privileged to answer the last one.

My answer is Yes here, and the reason is that my mindset about gambling has never been money-based. It has been on the fun side and a sense of doing it without being left out despite watching various sports events. This is merely the feeling of "belonging" in most cases and if I do not gamble when I want to, I do not always feel comfortable about it, especially if my speculation later becomes right. This mostly happens with sports betting.

With it, despite taking it more seriously to at least earn something from it no matter how little it is, I have not taken it as what will be earning my living, so it helps that way and it will not change regardless of my status. And this same mindset is what I believe I will still preserve when I am rich. The only thing that could change then is the amount I wager per bet because I would have had more access to funds, so there is no way I would not be thinking bigger at the time.

Let me say I partially agree with your statement in the sense that after a while (fewer years to now), people are now seeing the sense and tradition in Bitcoin which attracts them to invest in it. This is why I agree with you, and the fact that Bitcoin is an asset. Not only that, it is the asset that has found itself in the mainstream of the financial market. It can't be luck again with some people, but for some, it could still be, because some people are only doing things they see others doing. That aside, for those who are professional about it after its relevance, Bitcoin has its very predictable season and I have never seen an asset that is easy to earn from better than Bitcoin. So a calculated plan can easily make investors earn from it.

But I do not agree if we look way back when Bitcoin was just created. Those who invested then took a huge risk whether you like it or not, and it is a situation of unbelievable/unexpected things becoming a reality. For those people, they are indeed lucky, they only gambled on what they knew little or nothing about, a thing that is just irrelevant to society and the financial market. You guys may idolise them as better investors, but I don't. I only see them as those who took a high risk and were lucky with it.

This is certainly not professionalism at work the way you make it generally look, and that's what I am trying to clear here.

There is no need for a link, my friend, all that is important is for you to know that there is a new listing by exchanges or presales. Of course, exchanges are popular, you can follow any of the top ones. As for the new listings, if you are conversant with online crypto handles and news outlets like coindesk.com, you may know, because they are not always coming out in the same way or format. And of course, the social media handles they use cannot be the same because it is not the same brains behind them in most cases, which makes it somewhat difficult to know. Just be active on crypto news and channels, you might probably get the gist somehow. Even the feeds of some exchanges are good suggestions here, they like to gossip a lot to our advantage.

After locating the project, let me warn you that you are on your own at this point as any presale project could be a potential scam or real project, and no one knows this at first. But when they list it newly on exchanges, then you are better off. You should now weigh the project itself (by then you would have known everything about the website and the social media handles), the community size they have, the current price, the demand and supply, the blockchain they list it, how many projects are already available on that blockchain and many more. All these should be good enough for you to make an informed decision.

You may also use coinmarketcap.com for some information, especially for the demand and supply (inflow and outflow you requested).

Hahaha...That day Bitcoin will hit $1M, the whole world will be shaking... A single asset hitting $1M? Well, I don't see that coming, but perhaps, it will be the time that Bitcoin is compressed just like Gold to avoid it causing issues for the world. I can only imagine how many cheap billionaires would be easily produced and how that could cause global inflation at the same time. People look at this in the common man's view and not the professional/economic view, and I wonder how it would be so convenient at that time.

However, regulation of the crypto space has started but has not eaten deep into it, maybe some action will also be taking in that regard since it will look so much like an abomination by then. I expect a lot of surprises regarding Bitcoin in the future, let's just all wait and see. But people should not be talking as if they have a time travel machine which already made them know exactly what would happen.

I first heard about this almost 10 years ago, and now, it is getting more attention simply by the context of the offer. But my friend, you should not just go there, it is a fraud in disguise, a well-calculated machination to their advantage. Have you learned about the huge money they promised traders, how possible is that?

The ones I followed closely then showed that you will have to pay some fees before they allow you access to the funds, and these fees are not little, it could be running into hundreds of dollars in some cases. It doesn't end there, they would make sure you trade with their specially arranged account with a special broker, and by that, influences all your trading conditions. You will not be able to trade as you like and if you were given $50,000 for instance, you might be allowed to trade as though you had $100 in the account with the kind of restrictions they will enforce on that account. This is despite paying the high access free. So why don't you just deposit your hundreds of bucks instead of paying them as fees and start trading yourself? Mind you, that fee is not even a one-time payment with some of them, if not all. It's certainly not worth it.


The answer is a capital NO. If you want to learn trading, just find a good broker and open a demo account with it. Or open a live account, fund it with a small amount and train with the lowest risk possible. This is why we have cent accounts in trading.

However, such firms that claim they fund traders or whatever they are being called are looking for newbies and unsuspecting traders to cajole them into it to cheat them. I affirm that I have NEVER read a good story about this "Greek gift" offer. Beware!!!

F*ck it!

What a nice analogy. Of course, distilleries can't be closed for drinking issues, even as drinking has its benefits too, and just like the head can't be cut simply because of a headache, it is the solution that should be found for the person having issues in both cases. The context has been the issue of the gamblers in gambling and not gambling itself because no one forces anyone to gamble. If at all people gamble, no one forces them to continue to gamble and not know their limits and the time to stop. So we should blame it on ourselves and not casinos. I have heard many people talking about the ill side of gambling and how the government are turning a deaf ear to the negative effects. I wonder what they want the government to do in adult-related decisions. The government had done its part to ensure that the citizens/residents must be at least 18/21 years of age to gamble believing they would have been mature enough to make good decisions in this regard.

Even the most addicted to gambling I know are far older people than that age limit, which makes it even worse and shameful for them and not the government or the casinos. As an adult, I believe we should be smarter and wiser in decision-making and in handling situations and ourselves, but unfortunately, many are just living their lives like teenagers or even lower age. I don't know how the blame should ever be on the casinos that are neutral and not forcing anyone to play. It is simply our choice, and if we contract issues of emotion/addiction and the waste of money, it is we who should find a lasting solution to it. I, therefore, advise every gambler facing one challenge or another that it is a psychological thing, and when they notice it, they should try to fight it by themselves, but if their self-power fails, they should call for help ASAP.

The fast pace of withdrawal is also my most referenced consideration in choosing my casinos and sportsbooks, but in addition, the guarantee to get the money is equally important. Even if there is nothing like a "guarantee" here, the reputation of the casino/sportsbook should be high enough to warrant trust in dealing with them. This is because it is worthless to me if they either do not honour my withdrawal or delay my withdrawal. I must also say that there are many companies I have dealt with in the past but stopped patronising due to the manner in which they handled my withdrawal, though they never scammed me. But at times, the withdrawal could be delayed for 5 days, who does that in this present state of technology and competition where some withdrawals are either instant or almost instant? Those are the services I want for myself, and right now, that is the service I get with all the companies I deal with.

No matter how big and secure you are as a company, if you are such that delays my money, I will bullshit you, you should rather keep your bigness to yourself. This is still encapsulated under the good services and no casino can tell me that they have good service when their withdrawals are being delayed, and no matter how big the withdrawal is, it should be treated the same even after the so-called investigation which they did not do when you lose a huge amount of money to them.

But about the country's licencing and regulations remark, well, it is so difficult to hold onto that because most big casinos these days are registered in a less strict country which makes it more difficult to make them accountable for their bad/poor deeds. In my experience, even those casinos that are registered in countries like the UK that are better in casino regulations still cheat their customers judging by what I read online. Maybe this is emboldened by the customers low reportage, I don't know.

Nice points you have there and the good part is that good and reputable KYC casinos are all over the place for anyone to choose from, which includes Stake.com, and this further validates your point because, for example, liquidity is unwavering with Stake, to say the least. The majority can never be wrong in this regard as they troop into the centralised casinos rather than the decentralised arrangement because, despite the protection the decentralised casinos offer, almost all people still prefer the centralised exchanges, and that could only be majorly for liquidity.
And when they could get what they need there, why not stick to it? Which includes the lower general fees for betting and other transactions.

It will be a long difference if we start mentioning them as many reasons are attributed to the reason for the centralised choice which disfavours the decentralised casinos and favours the centralised casinos even aside from the liquidity. Regardless, the present-day reality is the proof and also key in this discussion, and the very good reason why we should consider the centralised arrangement even as people's reason(s) keeps pumping liquidity into it.

I must say that I like this development but this can't be entirely still. It could be merely a twist by a few of them whether people complained or not. The flexibility of allowing their customer to pend their KYC completion by choice is still a very good one in my opinion, only that people are taking it too far against the casinos which are supposed not to be. If a casino is not advertising a no-KYC, I see no reason why we should not get prepared for its completion now or later, and when we did not do it for a long duration of time despite giving us such a huge grace and the casinos now ask for it, we should not take any offence whatsoever because it is the right thing they do whether it is for our high winning or withdrawal reasons.

For me, I do not see any difference in this latest development because I always go from the KYC casino and complete my KYC immediately even before depositing my money. Is that not better? You can see that for someone like me, the development is still the same, only that people are always carried away and want to just be dealing with companies without doing the needful. But what I would not like is for a casino to be asking for additional documents after successfully verifying all the needed KYC details and documents. That disgusts me if I must say.

And men cannot multitask? Well, you are not getting the point. Any establishment has its vision and goals and the labour (man or woman) and plans to actualise the two. Now, what you asked depends on the nature of the job, because there are some jobs that it is better fitting for women than men, and vice versa. According to the plans of the establishment, they may prefer either of the two genders for the same job that other establishments are indifferent about because, at times, it is beyond what we see or think, they might have their ulterior motives which could be best suited for women or men. And when the job is masculinist in nature, it would obviously be given to men in most cases, unless women believed to be fitting for it are discovered and assigned to it. The same goes for the opposite.

Above all, you will hardly see the job nature where men and women can't fit in, and you will see enough that both men and women are practically heading. That is in the natural sense, but in the peculiar/preferential sense, it depends on the preference of the establishment and not the fact you brought out that one is more tasking, no, men are even better in all ramifications than women, in my opinion, even though some women are worthy rival to men.  

As I said above, it depends on the nature of the job and my plans to achieve my goal of establishing it. If at all, I will not discriminate for any reason so long as the two genders are best fitting for the job. I will only do the interview and employ the most qualified hand. However, if there is a better need for a particular gender due to the nature of the job, obviously, I will go for either of the two for the best productivity.

They say information is power, and the more you know about the teams that want to play, the more you can do the arithmetic and use your instinct to know the right team to choose. Also, the fact that sports are being betted live as it is played makes them unique, and it's also the reason why its betting is more reasonable and can't be tricked against the bettor since it is being watched all over the world with the record even posted everywhere on the internet after the game. It's also very simple with minimal risk depending on the kind of options the bettor opted for. Once you know how to analyze and speculate well about it, the issue is half-solved, but we still need the proper management of our portfolio to make it better in case of unexpected loss. Most of the immediate and past histories are also important here and I love to conclude my betting before the match starts to avoid the mistake of being emotional.

Bro, as simple as your post is, you covered a lot with it and truly if traders can follow your advice, it will be well with them. However, permit me to break the main reasons why traders fail in trading into parts, which are;

1. The lack of knowledge or proper knowledge.
2. Poor/improper training on what the trader knows to achieve a trading system.
3. Lack of proper money and risk management.
4. Lack of coordination of what the trader knows and trains about to form a viable plan with them. And finally,
5. Poor trading psychology.

In my long years of trading experience and teaching/tutoring, I discovered that the main problems of traders dangle between 3, 4 & 5, especially the 5th one. If traders can take care of the three and are disciplined/determined towards them, I am certain that success is closer for such traders.

You have some good points and I agree with most of them, but it is not in all of them, especially in the aspect of the reason stated to back your points up with facts that you have solid backing for them. It's true that Bitcoin could be getting harder to predict, yet, it is predictable especially if you shun the side attractions, especially online and the tradition but focus on the technical analysis and current happenings that are verifiable and impactful. They can be very useful this time and will avoid issues for the investors. Our Charts Don't Lie unless we read them wrongly.

Like you, I do not expect much from this year's halving, but the reason you have is different from mine. Your reason regarding the little left to mine is not so genuine since it was also a little left to mine in the last cycle but see what Bitcoin did? I believe the having is beyond what Satoshi meant it for with the latest happenings, it is now a tradition where people bring in money to buy Bitcoin. Whether miners have mined up to 99.99%, that tradition will not die. That's how people think and behave, they see it beyond the mere economics of scarcity that Satoshi planned for it.

Regardless, my fear now is that Bitcoin has done what it has never done before in the past cycles with the way it performed recently. I doubt if a lot would change this time.

Point of correction, no liquidity is reduced in Bitcoin due to halving, but the amount remaining to be mined will automatically be halved, and so the block reward. It is purported to distort the economics surrounding Bitcoin in terms of the demand and supply of the coin and cause it to be more valuable. Is this working, Yes, we can see what has happened in the past halving but we should not think it will continue automatically. This calls for caution this time.

Also with my studies of the past halving, the major bullish movements never happened immediately, we should expect the same now. Also, with the manner in which Bitcoin had moved past its former ATH already, a lot of interested buyers have committed their money to the coin already, which might slow progress down after halving this time since not so much money might be immediately available for it after it halved this time. If you agree with me, the situation we see in Bitcoin now is not the ones we saw in the past cycles. So we should expect a twist this time as well. For this, I am not expecting much after Bitcoin halving in 2024, and the $190,000 you called is too high judging by the reality of the present.

I think the word Conscience is misused in this context. What is directly involved in investment decision-making and to be blamed or appraised in any decision are your mind and instinct. They are actually the judge here. How to use them now depends on the knowledge and experience you have about the thing to decide upon and your affinity to gamble or take risks.

If at all you lose, what is the conscience issue about that? You can blame yourself entirely for that and regret it for long but still not feel remorse, not to mention your conscience prickling you. Unless you invested the money meant for a better purpose, stole someone's money, or lied to someone to collect the invested money you lost etc, that's the only time the conscience can be prickling you. But if this is your money or the money someone gifted you without having another purpose for it, why the conscience remark?

Also, I like you to know that in trading and investment, we are taking risks always, and the more you take the risk, the more likely it will become profitable to you if you are good at what you do. Investment is not a child's play and if anyone cannot handle it, it is better to steer clear of it, as it's never by force.

Nonetheless, what you expressed in full is basically emotional, and we should handle it with a strong mind and psychology.

Technology has its good and bad sides, but in all, the good side outweighs the bad side. Again, when it is well managed and used for the right purposes, it is even better as it will save costs, increase productivity and efficiency and also enhance security. However, the issue you just brought is not as you believed it, the Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) is not necessarily a means to monitor the employee but to record all the activities going on in the places covered by it.

This is why its primary purposes are for Security and Surveillance. You will need to do the surveillance for security's sake, which is why I believe the CCTV seems to be monitoring the employees, which is of course true, but not the main purpose.

There are no standard establishments where you will not see the CCTV, even in the supermarkets, all these can't primarily mean they are infringing on their employees or people's privacies but to be accountable for whatever happened in that vicinity. This is especially true when there is an incident. The first thing the police would ask is the CCTV.

If it were to be the monitoring of the employee, a senior staff without any additional payment would be able to do that just fine.