Okay, you gotta understand that it's important to learn making your own financial decisions instead of relying on financial advice of other people. So I'm not going to give you advice on what to do with the money. Instead, I'll just try to mention things that may be helpful to consider before making an informed decision.
- Is there a good chance you might need this $100 within the next year, and it will be a big problem if it's $70 instead of $100? If so, Bitcoin might be a risky investment because the price can easily go further down.
- Is there anything good you could spend this money on right now? Perhaps you can buy something or help someone with it.
- How long are you willing to wait for Bitcoin to grow? Let's imagine that at the end of 2024, Bitcoin rises to $100k. It's not an impossible scenario. That's a little under 4x increase from the current price, so let's say your $100 become $350. Is that a difference-making amount of money to you? Or will you hodl for many years in a hope of higher profit? Even if Bitcoin grows 10x over some time, that'll mean you get $1k out of $100, which is nice, but again, maybe not that significant, depending on your overall financial situation.
$100 might be a good experimental investment, just to see how it goes, or an initial investment that will be followed by more money being put into Bitcoin. If you intend to invest a total of $100 per month into Bitcoin, that can amount to a significant amount over time, but perhaps you need this money here and now for something else.

I'm a pretty trusting person in life. I generally tend to believe what people are saying, unless they're saying something that I find very suspicious or know it to be wrong. I often give people the benefit of the doubt when I'm not sure. As for a PIN from a debit card, that's obviously not something I'd give a random person, that's just common sense to me. Because if a person's asking that, they're most likely trying to rob me, so why would I help them? But my spouse knows PINs from my cards, and vice versa. I'd also be okay telling my pin to some other family members if I feel like it's the most convenient thing to do in a situation. And yes, I trust the same person with my seed phrase, and I'd be okay sharing it with the same family members when/if it makes sense.

The USA is going to length to ensure that it's not considered a country that's at war with any other country, and that position has been clear well before the Israel-Hamas war, namely in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Also, realistically, very few countries would want to go to war with the USA, considering how strong this country is economically, politically, militarily, and how it's a part of NATO. If it's a relatively small war (by small I mean something like in Afghanistan), it surely won't need to confiscate anything. If it's a huge war, I still don't think the US would want to lower the popular support that much. I mean, even much smaller countries with a much higher need for resources for the army (like Ukraine) don't do that because this is not the way.  Not to mention that it'll be hard to perform such a confiscation of a digital, decentralized asset.

If the SEC's not going to appeal, it likely means they decided that they don't have a good chance of winning the appeal, and so it's safer and, of course, cheaper not to do that. As far as I remember, the court's decision is about rejecting the grounds of rejection as not reasonable enough. That doesn't mandate the SEC to change their decision nor does it mean they have to accept the next application. They can figure out a different ground of rejection if they want to keep their strong stance against Bitcoin ETFs. I suppose we'll see how that plays out soon enough.

I think it's a matter of fact that Bitcoin was created not as an investment but primarily as a medium of exchange that allows removing the third party from the process, so it's not really something to argue for or against. But yes, it did turn out that Bitcoin became a very lucrative form of investment.
I'm really sorry about Lagos and the destroyed property. It's certainly unfair and sad for the investors. Another thing about physical property is that in some regions there can be a very legitimate concern of it getting destroyed due to warfare or natural disasters. Bitcoin is at least safe from those risks because it's digital.

I don't think that the global economic situation needs to be great for Bitcoin to reach another ATH. Let's not forget that the last bull market happened in the middle of the pandemic, lockdowns and huge disruptions of trade routes. Bitcoin can do well simply because people trust it more than they trust other things, for example (and some attributed BTC growth to US Covid financial relief to citizens), which allows it to grow when everything else isn't going well.
I think Bitcoin needs another year, so somewhere near the end of 2024 we can see a bull market, but that's merely my opinion.
As for $50k, I don't see it as more probable than $70k or $100k because historically, once Bitcoin reached the previous ATH after a bear market, it went on to surpass it. Stopping at $50k just doesn't seem likely to me because of that.

The first thing I decided to do was look at BTC price before the FTX collapse in November 2022 (as the collapse obviously wasn't the plan, and left SBF without the power to try conducting the alleged manipulations of the price).
The price dropped significantly in June, and remained around $20k for months (at between $19k and $20k in October). Then it really dropped hard in November, but that can be explained by the FTX collapse.
If keeping it below $20k literally meant keeping it at, like, almost $20k, I think that's weird. If the plan was to really bring the price down, the FTX collapse accomplished that, but at the cost of pretty much everything to the FTX.
So my verdict is that a major exchange can perform an exit scam or something, and the next of that will drive the price down, but if we're talking about significant price manipulations of an operating exchange, I don't think that's possible with Bitcoin because the market's just too big.

I'm not surprised by the list, but I don't understand why the evaluation is so low for some of them. I distinctly remember that some companies got over $1 trillion evaluation on the past, so seeing $300 billion as the top was kind of weird to me. I googled it, and it seems that there are companies (that includes Apple and Microsoft) with over a trillion in evaluation.
I assume the stark difference is due to brand evaluation being different from company evaluation...? Or why is it like that? If it's the same thing, how can the numbers differ so much?

People often acknowledge that while the DCA is a good strategy, it might be best to just wait out the times of extreme volatility of the bull and the bear markets. I think it's enough to only wait out the rapid bull markets, as I see no issues with buying when it's going down.
I appreciate the detailed guide of the op with the tips for different zones, and surely some might be willing to upgrade their strategies to use some of those tips. However, a major advantage of the DCA is how simple it is, whereas this sort of guide makes it a much more elevated (and complicated) strategy because a person needs to identify the zones (which IMO are often identifiable only in hindsight, by the way) and follow specific zone-dependent guidelines.

Even if it's not directly and done via a payment processing system like Bitpay, it's a significant achievement, and I'm happy to hear that. I hope it won't be just for the US, and people around the world will be able to use their BTC to purchase those cars.
The article says that BitPay will ensure that the money's legit, so perhaps that's a solid reason why Ferrari doesn't want to accept BTC payments directly: this way, they free themselves of the liability. And BitPay gets more publicity and customers, so I guess it's beneficial for them as well.

Oh wow, that's surprising news to me. To be honest, I thought that the Lightning Network was an ambitious but failed project because of not being user-friendly enough, but I was wrong. That is huge growth that shouldn't be disregarded, although Helena Yu's point on how it doesn't translate into growth of the number of users also seems valid.
I was glad to learn (thanks to BlackHatCoiner) that it's actually based on 52% out of the total, so the actual number of Lighting transaction is even higher.
I don't use the Lightning Network, but I don't hate it either. I don't think it's a bad thing for Bitcoin, even though it's an off-chain solution.

Of course, it's hard for me as a Ukrainian to hear that the world is tired and bored with the war from which my country's suffering every day, and not that since it's a big country, the scale of this war is much-much bigger than the war of Israel against Palestine. In any case, I don't think the escalation happened 'cause the world got bored. If anything, I believe Hamas is controlled by Iran, and Iran is militarily friendly with Russia, so perhaps they've made some sort of deal to distract the world from Russia's activities by making people focus on how cruel Hamas can be.
The financial side of the op's post is reasonable, it's true that there's often a disproportionate interaction where a drone can take out something much more expensive, but also, looking at the Russian side here, a relatively cheap drone can trigger a much more expensive spending on an air defence missile on it. These things can make drones much more popular in the military in the future, but, to be honest, I don't think that has any impact on the crypto market or on the global economy in general.

I'm happy for Germany reaching the top-3, it's truly amazing. I hope they'll be able to fully stop their trading with Russia, now that they're officially super rich, though, as they're still transitioning from their dependence on Russian resources. Of course, as a Ukrainian, I never bought into the Russian propaganda of how the sanctions would kill Europe (starve, freeze, devastate economically), but it's nice to see objective proof that this didn't happen and that Germany actually had significant gains in 2023.

As was pointed out, Satoshi left the project a long time ago, and it's been going on without the inventor for more than a decade now. So yeah, there's no reason to believe that a creator's presence is needed for Bitcoin to function properly. There are other people working on its development, and if/when some of them leave/die, others can get involved, and it's totally fine. If we arrive at a point when nobody's doing any maintenance or development, I suppose it can eventually become a problem, but where there's demand, there will be a supply.

While many people pointed out that measuring halving up to the exact day is tricky, I want to address another thing.
I don't buy into this kind of chart analysis, to be honest, primarily because I believe it's very easy to manipulate charts to make all sorts of points by playing with the scope and the scale. What I do believe in is that Bitcoin will rise eventually, probably during next year, but I don't think it's relater to halving or to 200 days before halving in any way.
It can look fancy and sound legit, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I've come to accept it years ago that Bitcoin moves through fast bull markets and long bear markets, or at least periods of stagnation. I was hard in 2018-2019, but I was ready for it this time. Perhaps the fact that I don't focus too much on the price and view Bitcoin more as a currency (or something like a safeguard against fiat inflation) also helps me with it. I guess I'm not tired of waiting because I'm not really waiting. I'm okay with the price, and seeing a nice growth is more of a bonus that a key feature to me.

I think investing in gold and expecting to make profit only makes sense if a person already has tons of money, so even a small amount of growth can lead to a lot in terms of profits. But in that case, you should probably stop focusing on profits and start thinking about making an impact with the wealth you already have. Or a person might also simply keep some wealth in gold because of believing that it's safer than fiat (which it is because fiat is losing value over time).
As for Bitcoin, it's an easier thing to buy, a safer thing to buy (no need to worry about overpaying or about falsifications), but it can be way less stable than gold, and a bear market might catch a person off-guard.

I love the idea of a teaching career because I understand this one a lot. To make it into a business, you could start your own school and hire other teachers over time, build an online brand over it. I don't mean an official school, with the licensing and tons of kids. I mean more like those English language schools, you know, where some people have group lessons, some have private lessons, but it's all a matter of private additional education rather than a substitute for proper official education. Depending on where you live, you might even simplify this by making your school 100% online, so you don't need to worry about accommodation and can reach more people who live in different cities.
If it's your own business, you can decide how much time and effort you put into it and how much is left for cryptos. And eventually, you can also try making a course on blockchain, perhaps, who knows.

I trust Bitcoin in a sense that I trust that it's a secure decentralized psedonymous currency that can be stored and used without intermediaries.
As for the price, I expect Bitcoin to have more bull and bear marker in the future and expect it to recover from every bear market, even though I realize there's no guarantee that it will keep happening.
I didn't invest at $60k, and I think doing that would be somewhat unwise, but I do think that even those who bought at $60k will enjoy profits from their investments in the long run.
The price of Bitcoin can go below $20k, but I think it's unlikely to happen.

That's not exactly right. When people are hodling, they can easily use non-custodial wallets because they don't need to move their coins much anyway, but when they are trading, a centralized crypto exchange might be much more convenient for fast and regular buy/sell orders/ As for the minimum amount, I think many exchanges have very small deposit/withdrawal limits and something below that wouldn't make much sense with hodling either due to transaction fees.
But securing the funds is truly important in both cases. I'd also say that there's a risk of financial losses in both cases as well, if we're talking about the similarities.