Depends on how you want to look at things (i.e. take into account crypto volatility or not) and choosing a period to analyze is judgmental. The main reason people considered BTC to be coupled with stock markets is that in recent years (say from around 2017 onwards), the price of both reacted in similar ways to changes in the market's conditions. And the initial expectation for Bitcoin was to be a hedge against inflation, so the negative correlation was expected, which was not really the case.

In theory - yes, in practice - crypto is most commonly used as a form of investment, so the ability to exchange it for fiat/other goods is crucial for that purpose.
It still has the potential of becoming fuel for an alternative economy if the traditional fiat system gets overly restrictive, but that won't be easy to achieve.



Banks already have systems of flagging suspicious transactions, plus, high penalties for illegal/unlicenced P2P trading could make it simply too risky for the sellers.


Sure, but this rule only works when you have the freedom to choose an alternative to such failed currency. In a scenario where crypto trading is delegalised, I can't imagine it replacing fiat, even if the use of fiat is massively restricted. Especially if fiat is still good enough to use for the purchase of government-approved goods.

Tak bym zgadywał. Jeżeli masz dochód w tokenach o zerowej wartości, to tak naprawdę nie masz żadnego dochodu, przynajmniej w rozumieniu podatkowym, więc ewentualny podatek płatny byłby dopiero przy sprzedaży na PLN (pit 38).


Też słyszałem o takich przypadkach, ale chyba da się wtedy od takiej kary odwołać.

Of course, different countries have different interests, but strong countries always have some power to impose their will onto weaker ones. The Russian-Ukraine war is a good example, it was obvious that Germany and France initially were pushing for peace talks and were hoping for things to return back to normal, but that wasn't in line with US's goals. To make their arguments more convincing, US blew up Nordstream 2 baltic pipe, sending a message to Germany that going back to old ways of buying gas from Russia is no longer an option.
I'm not saying that Europe is totally controlled by the US, but it's undeniable that the US has been pretty effective in forcing their way in the most important issues.

So the question is what's the real reason behind the crypto crackdown. i.e. if they decided that crypto is a major threat to their financial system, then they won't allow the crypto industry to just move and bloom in other countries. Plus, even without US pressure, other countries could come to the same conclusion and start seeing crypto as a threat.

I'm sure you're aware of that, but you should keep an eye on the signature campaigns, I think some of them are currently open (if not, still worth monitoring as things change quickly):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg62387617#msg62387617

It may be hard for you, given the lack of activity, but if you share your history in application post(s), who knows, maybe you'll get in (your green trust works in your favour).
You won't survive on that alone, but that's still better than nothing and should not consume too much of your time.

Good luck.

Yeeeah, but not like this 
This is not the direction everyone was hoping for. But who knows, maybe it could work too. If investors worldwide stop perceiving BTC as being correlated with stock markets, maybe it'll be easier to break away the other way around in the future.

DCA is a useful strategy especially when you expect price to grow over time but are not sure will the price be moving in cycles. But historically speaking, those who were aiming to buy only during the dips (or what looked like a possible dip) note better results than those doing the DCA. Of course buying the dips require more analysis, but it's not like you have to time the market perfectly. Sometimes all it takes is to avoid buying at what looks like a peak of the hype, or just buy when moods are low.

Would your approach be any different if (in this hypothetical scenario) the country did not ban crypto trading? i.e. would you still risk your holdings by gambling?

If you can find an alternative to convert to fiat (e.g. by using foreign exchange) then the local trading ban is irrelevant.
And if you can't find such alternative, then why bother gambling at all, since you can't cash out your earnings any way.

Tu chyba bez zaskoczenia, biorąc pod uwagę poczynania SECu i niepewność czy i za które krypto wezmą się w następnej kolejności. Bitcoin może raczej spać spokojnie jeśli chodzi o to czy jest "security" czy nie, bo sam Gensler kilkukrotnie potwierdził że nie jest. Ale oczywiście cena BTC też dostaje po tyłku razem z resztą rynku krypto.


Obstawiam że raczej powoli do góry jeśli sytuacja się uspokoi i nie będziemy mieli kolejnych rewelacji ze strony SECu czy tym podobnych.

It's hardly ever a good tactic. Altcoin pump is usually delayed compared to Bitcoin and alts are the first to drop. They also tend to tank harder than BTC + the composition of the top 10 keeps changing over time, so if you want to stick to this tactic, you'd have to rebalance periodically, which also generates costs/losses.
Meanwhile, despite all the bearish news, Bitcoin's dominance has risen to over 48%. I remember some experts saying around a year ago that BTC will unlikely cross 40% and that it'll be losing dominance over time.

Logicznie by było gdyby podatek był naliczany: 1) w momencie otrzymania zapłaty, np dostajesz zapłatę 1 btc o wartości 10k PLN i od tego się rozliczasz, 2) a jeżeli sprzedasz tego 1 btc za np 15k PLN, to płacisz podatek od tych 5k PLN. Albo jeżeli sprzedałeś ze stratą, to w PITcie deklarujesz stratę (którą możesz wykorzystać w przyszłych latach).
To chyba jedyne sensowne rozwiązanie, ale czy tak jest w PL - nie wiem.


Bardzo możliwe, ale wydaje mi się że możnaby tu zastosować przepisy o wymianie barterowej, które jakie są - nie wiem, ale jakieś muszą być.

Whether it is or isn't a good time to buy should not depend on your current holdings. Why would you propose "no-coiners" to buy now and to those who already hold to wait for a deeper dip? This makes no sense.

But yeah, for those who want to enter with a lump sum and not do the DCA, I'd probably wait a little longer to see how the current situation will unfold. You can't time the market perfectly anyway so it's all about identifying the price trend.

What makes you so sure about that? Depending on how severe the crypto crack-down will get and if it spreads globally, then it's possible that the market will not go back to the same price/volume levels at all, or at least not in the foreseeable future.


DEXs are a good way to protect you from scammy CEXs, but they don't offer any real resistance to crypto regulations. Assuming you would want to exchange crypto/fiat at some point - you're still at the mercy of the regulators and whether or not they allow crypto/fiat exchange.

That's a weird take.
What do you mean Bitcoin is expensive compared to others? What metrics are you looking at? Price per coin, market cap?
If I offered you a newly created token at $0.01 each would you buy it just because it's "cheap"?
Sure, it's possible that some altcoins will go x10 or more overnight, but that will not happen for all of them (many will drop to zero and die). And unless you can predict exactly which of them will pump and when (which you can't) then, historically speaking, holding BTC is a much more profitable option, as explained somewhere at the beginning of this thread.

That's a big question. The US has a pretty big influence on most European countries, but it's not like they have complete control over them. And probably subject of crypto trading is not of any major strategic importance, so maybe they won't be expanding their crypto crack-down outside of the US.
If I remember correctly, the most recent opinions of EU on crypto were not very friendly, and Binance had to block certain features for its UK customers (as well as well to stop supporting GBP deposits/withdrawals), so I'm not very optimistic here, but wish Binance all the best.

Dzięki za ciekawe info, rzeczywiście wygląda to bardzo fajnie i prosto z punktu widzenia podatnika, ale to wszystko dotyczy tylko zysku z handlu kryptowautami, co moim zdaniem jest trochę osobnym tematem.
Byłoby pięknie gdyby zarobki w BTC były traktowane jako zakup BTC po cenie zero PLN (bo płacimy "tylko" pisaniem postów i czasem) ale wątpie żeby tak było i prawdopodobnie podpada to pod działaność zarobkową zyski z której trzeba zadeklarować.

Poczytałem trochę tutaj: https://www.biznes.gov.pl/pl/portal/00115 i wygląda że przy zarobkach do 50% płacy minimalnej nie trzeba rejestrować działalności gospodarczej ale dalej trzeba to rozliczyć to w pit 36 (dodatkowa rubryka "działalność nierejestrowana"). W moim przypadku ($100/tydz.) zyski są na granicy tych 50%.

ToS do not supersede the law and the law would usually require any service to inform its users of any changes to their ToS and give users an option to opt-out if they do not agree with the changes.

Yes, as per standard practice almost every service would give itself a right to change their ToS but that does not mean they don't have to inform its users of the changes (in advance). But the logic you described, why would the casino have any ToS at all? They seem unnecessary in such scenario, as the casino could effectively do anything they wanted.

What exactly makes you think so? Bitcoin is currently down ~60% from its ath ($69k), so how can you claim it has never lost in the long run?
What you mean is that historically Bitcoin's price moved in cycles, with each cycle bringing new ath, but, as the things currently are, you cannot say that it has never lost, as that's simply incorrect.
Also, the belief that the price will keep moving in the same pattern forever is naive. It's simply not possible for it to move by a similar percentage each cycle, as everything has its limits.

Here's a press hit from Forbes, from 3 days ago. I feel like the market situation is far from the "bloodbath", in fact, I'm surprised that the recent SEC's actions didn't cause a much greater price drop, but I guess exaggerated headlines generate more clicks.

‘Bloodbath’—Sudden $1 Trillion Crypto Crash Sparks Fresh Coinbase Warning And Tanks The Price Of Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB, XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, Polygon And Solana

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/06/10/bloodbath-sudden-1-trillion-crypto-crash-sparks-fresh-coinbase-warning-and-tanks-the-price-of-bitcoin-ethereum-bnb-xrp-cardano-dogecoin-polygon-and-solana/

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself here a little bit here. You admit that AI will replace people in many jobs while claiming that humans are irreplaceable.
Even if we still need people to supervise AI operations, that does not mean the problem doesn't exist. It's not much of a consolation if you have 10 people operating certain AI tool if that tool replaced tens of thousands of people in their jobs.

Besides, can you name a single type of job that cannot be replaced by AI/automation and explain why?