Yes, if the ordinary citizen is interested in gold or storing value.

Bitcoin is not a currency (yet).  It is a store of value and it competes against gold.  It has superior store-of-value features to gold.

Major factors on price of Bitcoin:

1.  Competition.  Is there a better coin with better technology that can pose a serious threat?

2.  Scalability (which is related to Competition).  This has plagued Bitcoin for most of this year.  If they can solve this problem, such as implementing Lightning Network and others, than Bitcoin can rally.

Bitcoin's application is not currency (currently).  It is a store of value and competes against gold and Bitcoin has many store-of-value features that are superior to gold.

I'm probably one of the few people who is not a fan of hardware wallets like Trezor.  I cannot be convinced that a rogue employee at the manufacturer has not implanted nefarious code into the firmware.

I can recommend Electrum (for Mac or Windows) as it provides a code-storage, offline option.  It has been open sourced for many years.  But it does not have a iOS version.  Even if it did, all mobile wallets are the least secure because phones are so insecure.

I'm not sure what you mean by assimilation projects and dark horse in the field of subdivision.  Can you elaborate?

According to a Coindesk article  , most projects do not use their tokens in their applications, as their tokens do not really serve any function:  "... many projects are putting on a song and dance, giving investors the impression that the token they are selling is an integral part of a working, or almost working, smart contract. But this is often far from the truth..."  "And what buyers do not realize is, in most cases, what they are buying is nothing more than a number on a spreadsheet managed by that token's smart contract."

Gambling or gaming tokens are the rare exceptions.

Gambling and gaming are excellent applications and a natural fit for cryptos.  Everyone else is trying to put anything and everything onto a blockchain, including the kitchen sink.  It's like trying to squeeze a square into a circle.

Regulation is a double edged sword.

Currently, securities offerings are heavily regulated.  Most start-ups would not have the resources to comply with regulations and therefore, they can only take money from friends, family and accredited investors.  This means that if ICOs are regulated, most people would not be allowed to invest.

However, most accredited investors (wealthy people) don't know anything about technology, crypto currencies and the risks involved.  A basement dweller geek understands these things better.  Regulation will put up a wall between ICOs and the basement dweller.

Yes, regulation will save some basement dwellers from getting screwed by some ICO scams.  It will also prevent the basement dweller from investing in the next Ethereum and the basement dweller is much better equipped to spot the next Ethereum than most accredited investors.

Regulators give preference to accredited investors, but their logic has major flaws:

1) Regulators think that accredited investors are better investors.  Not necessarily.  A doctor knows nothing about investing.  A surviving spouse may know nothing about business.  Celebrities are HORRIBLE investors.

2) Regulators think that accredited investors can afford to lose the investment.  A 65 year old, retired accredited investor cannot afford to lose 100% of his net worth.  If he does, the rest of his life is screwed.  An 20 year old basement dweller can lose 100% of his net worth and it won't be a serious problem.

Yes and no.

The StockBet Platform will already have games and will not need payment to the developers each time token holders play the games.  If new developers propose to build and add a new game, the proposal might  include a fee.  The community of token holders will be able to decide on whether to accept that proposal or not.  Furthermore, you cannot open an account with a stock broker to play with stocks unless you had hundreds or thousands of dollars to deposit.  Minimum fee per bet (trade) is approx. 10 dollars.  These don't apply to StockBet.

Tezos is probably over-priced.  They're going to get more competitors, such as EOS or Radix.global.

A few ICOs are scams, but most are not.  Most have good intentions, but most are bad ideas or bad executions.

All cryptos combined will likely go up in the future.

However, it's hard to tell if Ethereum will continue going up at the same rate as in the past.

They are getting new competitors every day:  EOS, Radix.global, etc.

Gambling is one of the best applications and a natural fit for crypto currencies.

But everyone is trying to put everything on a blockchain, including the kitchen sink.

You bring up a good point.  I wrote too soon in my previous comment.

For it to be a security, it needs to be an investment in a common enterprise.  Neither the card nor the house are common enterprises.

If he had a history of making accurate predictions, the article would have mentioned them.

Chinese investors can still move money offshore without Chinese ICOs.  They can still buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc., with RMB and sell elsewhere for USD.

You bring up something I was going to write earlier.

Even if governments regulate, it doesn't mean that they will be able to enforce.  China has banned its people from selling coins in ICOs.  This might be enforceable.  But if China bans its people from buying coins, this will be hard to enforce.

FYI, governments do not and have never analyzed companies for investors.  Governments will ban companies from making promises or claims, such as:  "buy our coin and it will go up in value by 200%".

Only the Chinese government can give you a good answer.

“Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future.”

--- Warren Buffett

If you sell baseball cards and tell your buyers that it's an investment and that the value of the cards will go up, then it will likely be deemed a security.

When you review new projects, make sure you can find the team members on LinkedIn and with at last 100 connections for person.

Regulation is a double edged sword.

Currently, securities offerings are heavily regulated.  Most start-ups would not have the resources to comply with regulations and therefore, they can only take money from friends, family and accredited investors.  This means that if ICOs are regulated, most people would not be allowed to invest.

However, most accredited investors (wealthy people) don't know anything about technology, crypto currencies and the risks involved.  A basement dweller geek understands these things better.  Regulation will put up a wall between ICOs and the basement dweller.

Yes, regulation will save some basement dwellers from getting screwed by some ICO scams.  It will also prevent the basement dweller from investing in the next Ethereum and the basement dweller is much better equipped to spot the next Ethereum than most accredited investors.

Regulators give preference to accredited investors, but their logic has major flaws:

1) Regulators think that accredited investors are better investors.  Not necessarily.  A doctor knows nothing about investing.  A surviving spouse may know nothing about business.  Celebrities are HORRIBLE investors.

2) Regulators think that accredited investors can afford to lose the investment.  A 65 year old, retired accredited investor cannot afford to lose 100% of his net worth.  If he does, the rest of his life is screwed.  An 20 year old basement dweller can lose 100% of his net worth and it won't be a serious problem.