This seems like a serious case of victim blaming here.

Yes, leveraged products probably aren't made to be held in the long run. But does that mean that investors should bear the risk of any misconduct on the exchange's part, or unwise management of security systems? Definitely not.

I do wonder how much they're looking to compensate holders of leveraged positions (if at all). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they penalise just regular balance-holders somehow as well. Their previous moves don't inspire confidence whatsoever.

If you know that a casino has good freebets/promos, then definitely check your inbox periodically.

They don't have the obligation to be pushing you emails about these promos, although it's probably bad from a marketing perspective for them to do so.

The problem for me actually lies within the fact that casinos like Roobet and Freebitco.in have fallen in love with email notifications that never seem to stop and are generally completely useless. I've even unsubscribed to a few of the newsletters given how annoying they have been.

This is what I find ridiculous about any efforts from governments in trying to restrict access to gambling.

Sure, you might be able to bust a couple of unlucky gamblers that frequent these joints. But at the end of the day, what have you achieved? So long as there is demand for these gaming services, they will exist. It's the law of free market economics.

Regulating these entities make a lot more sense from a fiscal standpoint as well as a pragmatic perspective. You can control the edge that casinos have, ensure that they do not cheat, and make a bunch of tax revenue. Win-win.

It's really interesting to see how many people exactly are using crypto as a store of value.

I do think that adoption for that is increasing, but haven't seen sufficient evidence yet to suggest that it is occurring at a scale that some media outlets hype it up to be. Venezuela and Turkey seem to be epicenters of this false reporting.

The exchange shutdown probably has more to do with the Turkish government ban more than any actual financial strain (although it is possible that it is a case of a fractional reserve scheme gone wrong). It is a real shame that Turkey is actively driving out potential sources of real growth and revenue from their economy.

Precisely.

Point is that OP probably has nothing to gain from having multiple accounts on sites that allow it (e.g., unregulated crypto betting sites that have ridiculously low limits and high risk associated with it), and everything to lose on sites that don't allow it (e.g. Bet365).

Your advice would be precisely the same as my recommendations - absolutely zero point in even trying to get stealth accounts or whatnot. Too much risk involved.

I honestly don't understand why people valuate Tesla at such high levels.

It virtually makes no sense. People are essentially pricing in decades worth of earnings growth into an unprofitable company. Automakers that have been making profits for decades, like BMW and Mercedes, are somehow outpriced in terms of market cap.

A 50 P/E ratio is considered to be bubble territory. Tesla currently has a four digit P/E of 1,100. Think about that.

Plenty of them out there.

Apart from the ones you mentioned, I personally know of EOSBet, which essentially gives you a rakeback in the form of their native tokens (that pay dividends) as you bet.

There is one thing to note here, though. If you are betting for the purpose of investing or "mining" you are likely not going to be better off compared to if you just bought the tokens off an exchange or someone else instead. Even investing in a casino directly will likely yield much better results in the long run given the house edge you incur every time you place a wager.

Is this even a question?

Everyone with a brain knows that Doge is substantially overpriced from what its fundamentals are (if it even has any fundamentals). I'm fairly sure that even the earliest dogecoin adopters and the founders would be comfortable in admitting that.

It's now just a complete mania, and a speculative game where people are guessing how much others would pay for the same token in the future. The interesting thing is that there is no baseline valuation to measure Dogecoin's value off of which makes price manipulation a whole lot easier.

Precisely.

People seem to think that blockchain has to be connotated with currencies - but that is far from the truth.

Blockchain's immutability and instantaneous settlements is arguably far more significant compared to the very specific usage case of cryptocurrencies alone. When smart contracts are deployed on blockchain ledgers on a massive scale across the economy, they have the real potential to make things a heck of a lot more streamlined and efficient.

Economists should embrace blockchain, not try and oppose it.

What are you babbling about?

The rebound at $50k just shows how strong the support still is at that level and there seems to be no signs of the market sentiment declining any time soon. In fact, I'd expect the FOMO to get even bigger given that people have now seen first hand how strong the institutional bagholders are and will be.

Definitely not in a bear market and probably won't be for another half-year at the very least.

I have precisely the same problem as you.

Sent a transaction with 11 sat/byte from a Ledger wallet and tried to accelerate it with ViaBTC. Came back with the insufficient fee prompt.

The transaction is RBF but I can't seem to find a way to do that within the ledger live interface. Oh well, I guess I'll just wait an eternity until the confirmations come and the mempool miraculously unclogs itself

And look where BTC prices are right now.

Look, the dump below $50k was pure panic. There was no rational justification as to why that dump even happened in the first place.

The rebound was as swift as the pump (if not more so). It just shows how strong institutional demand right now is. People are ready to buy any cheap coins that are available, even when prices drop by $1k or $2k. There aren't going to be the weak hands that drove prices down due to panic dumps in previous bull markets anymore in this rally.

Don't be fooled. Bitcoin trading =/= bitcoin adoption.

The volumes seen by LBC are small in comparison to the overall size of the economy anyway. If the narrative that Venezuelans are actually using BTC to transact on a day to day basis on a massive scale was true, then the volumes would likely be significant larger - with much more reports of physical vendors actively accepting BTC.

But we know that's not the case. When your minimum wage is $1 a month, sending a BTC transaction may not even be financially feasible. It's much more likely the volume on LBC is simply generated by traders who are speculating on BTC as the bull market emerged.

Can confirm that Nitrogen has been offering one free withdrawal per week for a while now.

However, I do believe that they have a 100% wagering requirement before you are able to withdraw your funds. So don't go onto Nitrogen expecting to use it as a wallet - and I'm pretty sure that this applies to any casino that has free/limited free withdrawal per week.

Great table, though. With prices (and fees) this high, withdrawal fees have become a real discriminant between casinos in terms of what they players look at when they choose where to play. I would say that letting the user set their own fees is always superior to having a fixed fee.

I really don't see any point in trying to crack down on the domestic gaming industry instead of actively trying to regulate it.

Firstly, black market gambling joints are always going to pop up. We know that it's human nature to gamble, and as long as there is local demand, there will be supply regardless of what sort of restrictions are in place.

Secondly, offshore/online gambling sites are simply going to replace local joints for the interested gamblers.

Lastly, it's just missed revenue for the government. If Dubai could regulate the gambling industry as opposed to actively restricting it, then not only can they save on enforcement costs for their restrictions, but also reap significant taxation revenue from the industry.

100% bitcoin.

It has all the desirable characteristics that gold holds. For instance, it has a limited supply (which is completely democratised and not manipulable by large corporations, mind you) just like gold which makes it a good long term store of value.

However, BTC's ability to function as currency is where it distinguishes itself from gold or other precious metals. It's no secret that gold and silver are cumbersome as a medium of exchange even though they are a good long term hedge against inflation and fiat - BTC resolves both the high transportation costs as well as the storage costs associated with that, making it much more accessible to the masses.

Look, this short term correction seems to have gotten everyone panicking.

The bull market as of now is still completely intact. There is absolutely no indication that markets are going to flash crash without warning from this point on. An adjustment to a raging, unsustainable rally is more than natural.

Institutional bagholders are aplenty in the bull market, and that's what sets this one apart from the ones that came before. These institutions are much less likely to be weak hands that panic dump in the midst of a bear market - in fact, they'll likely take the time to double down and load up on even more.

It has become a trend that the peak of the past big bull market generally becomes the new support level.

If that theory holds up, and I think it holds some ground, then $20k should be the "firm" support level.

But keep in mind that black swan events occur. Just because $20k seems impenetrable right now doesn't mean that it will stay that way. Volatility in the market is still tremendously large and don't let this period of relative stability fool you - don't forget the flash crash that sent BTC sub-$3000 on certain derivative exchanges just a year ago.

Probably due to the introduction of the digital yuan.

They want to change the public opinion on digital assets in general. However, what they don't want is people adopting BTC as a form of digital currency.

Essentially, it's a compromise that they've reached. They're fine with people using BTC as a long term store of value so long as it doesn't directly compete with CBDCs - which is actually good news for BTC given that it can have a place coexisting with fiats.

Look, this has happened in the past and is bound to happen as the mass adoption stage goes underway.

There has been various instances of this happening in banks across the world, not just the UK. Most banks, even if they don't explicitly ban the transfer of funds for the purposes of trading/transacting with cryptos, would not be particularly pleased if they found out that you trade bitcoin.

I've personally gotten my account suspended temporarily for just selling BTC on LBC for a few hundred bucks. Absolutely draconian stuff that reinforces the need for decentralisation.