I'm totally fine with option A. I don't care about the number rising, you know. What matters to me is purchasing power, so having the same salary but being able to afford more and more on that salary doesn't sound bad. But, honestly, I don't understand why it's a salary option vs savings taxation option. 2% inflation rate isn't much, and one can keep the savings not in fiat (in gold, in Bitcoin) to avoid that. So if with option B there's also constant salary growth above inflation, it's also a good model.
Thinking of countries, I feel like option A is similar to the situation in Japan until recently, and B is similar to the US.

Trading is a risky and time-consuming practice. Some people seem to be good at it, and it can become a source of income for them. But a lot of people suck at trading, and I'm not sure that practice makes perfect in this case. Trading Bitcoin requires regular activities, stress, monitoring the market. Accumulation is way easier and also safer because Bitcoin does seem to have a strong upward long-term trend, whereas with trading, you can lose money even if a currency is good and has great potential. So, as for me, accumulation is wiser.

Bitcoin is volatile, and it's been volatile since its creation. It's a by-product of being unregulated and subject only to the free market. There's no need to give too much thought to daily or weekly Bitcoin's fluctuations, as they don't mean anything and major trends are only visible in hindsight anyway. I'd say that any price above $60k is certainly a good price, and, zooming out the price chart, it looks like we're still very close to the peak and there's no reason to get worried. The price is just 15% below the ATH, which is uncommon.

I wouldn't mix goods and services into one area this way. Production of goods was historically important, but service-based economies can function well nowadays. Producing services isn't the same as producing goods because you often don't need the kind of resources for it that you need for goods. The economy of Singapore, for example, is 75% service-based and less than 1% agricultural.
Nigeria (according to Wikipedia) is around 55% service-based, 24% industrial and 22% agricultural. It's not a bad division per se, and the production of goods (especially essential goods like in agriculture) is on a much higher level there than in a much more successful Singapore.
What does make Singapore special is a famously low corruption level and famously high pro-business orientation. So I think Upgrade00 was right to mention corruption as a major problem of Nigeria.

Op, your text is so long that it'll discourage people from reading it and taking part in a meaningful discussion, You should at least add a TL;DR for this.
If I got it right, TL;DR: Even when you're excited about Bitcoin, those close to you might not care, so if you want to convince them to invest, you should explain what Bitcoin is, what gives it value (decentralization), fixed supply as a hedge against inflation, self-custody of coins, mining as a buyer of unused energy surplus, and that it's not too late to invest.

Honestly, I don't know anyone inquisitive enough to listen to all that information about Bitcoin, especially if they aren't really interested in investing. I think that, overall, it's not a good practice to convince others to invest in certain things. If you want your relatives to get into Bitcoin, you can simply gift them a small amount of it, which might encourage them to learn more.

I mean, yeah, we're paying a lot in taxes, and people often don't realize that they're paying taxes because some of them are just included in prices (like VAT), so they don't realize how much they're paying. But I think that taxes are okay because I do believe that we need public services, like cleaning the streets, public schools, basic healthcare. In my country, there's actually much more covered as public services, as most universities are public and offer free tuition to a very significant amount of students, and we also have public (state-owned) transport, even a couple of banks. So, to me, it makes sense that taxes should be paid, as there are a lot of things that come "free" (from taxpayers' money) in the end.

Bitcoin is an alternative to fiat and to traditional financial assets. But it's not a mutually exclusive alternative. People can use Bitcoin alongside fiat, and they can invest into Bitcoin while investing into other assets. That is why, while I believe that Bitcoin will continue growing and might at some point reach, like, a billion users, it won't disrupt the existing global economic structures, unless something unprecedented happens. It can coexist with traditional financial institutions and currencies, and I think that's how things will move forward.

I like researching stuff, I really do. But I do it either out of personal curiosity or when I need to do it for work, studying or something similar. Bitcoin halving, to me, isn't an event that needs to be researched. It's just a reduction in block reward, and there are differing opinions on its impact on the price or whether it even has impact. I think that the event itself gives Bitcoin some publicity, but no direct impact on the price. Sometimes it goes up months after halving, this time it actually went up before halving. In any case, it's not anything important.

For me, Bitcoin is an independent digital currency and also tends to grow over time. It's not under control by any government or corporation, so it has no affiliation and the price is unregulated. While centralized exchanges often require KYC, people can keep their coins in self-custody, providing no information and truly being the owners of their coins, without needing to rely on any authorities.
It's just good to be able to use something that isn't so tied to politics and governments, and the upward long-term price trend doesn't hurt either.

Honestly, I don't consider Snowden an authority, considering that he's been living in Russia for over a decade now, and got Russian citizenship, awarded personally and after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by an internationally recognized war criminal Putin.
I support leaks in the interest of civil society, and I respect privacy, but that's not the same as what Snowden's been up to for a while now.
For me, Bitcoin is private enough, with the pseudonymity and non-custodial wallets requiring no private information.

Bitcoin is already very generic, and I don't think anything needs to be done in that regard. Perhaps what the op's asking about is user-friendliness and accessibility? I personally find non-custodial wallets like Electrum quite understandable and easy to use, but perhaps a wallet that looks more like online banking and gives you warnings for newbies to double-check the address and mind that transactions can't be reversed could be helpful.
Then, of course, there are centralized solutions that make Bitcoin easier to use as well as can make cheap instant transactions possible (because the transactions aren't actually happening on-chain).

Milei had some radical ideas, and some of them are being implemented. But as of May 2024, Argentina's Central Bank is still operating. The solution of dollarization and Central Bank abolition is still being discussed, but it wasn't implemented. It's not impossible to make it work, and it might be a good idea for Argentina, considering decades of poor financial policies, but it doesn't mean this decision is without risks. In the meantime, Milei restricted public spending and said that Argentina had a first budget surplus in more than a decade.

I agree that wealth is not just about the money one has, but it also affects the lifestyle, social circles and activities. However, there are some things people can't and maybe shouldn't change (such as your family). Also, getting a fresh start doesn't mean you'll get rich, and of course there are different kinds of rich.
As for hard work, some rich people do work a lot, but there are also those who simply are rich by inheritance. Also, some people work really hard but are poor.
What I think is important is to understand what one wants from life and what one can realistically get. It's also great to enjoy the process and not push oneself for a result that may never come or may come at some point at a great expense and without the expected joy.

For money to function, its value doesn't need to increase (and it seems that a lot of economists believe that it actually should decrease to motivate people to spend it). So that makes the op's question about the price of Bitcoin legitimate.
Bitcoin is seen by many as an investment, and also, its price isn't regulated by anyone. That's why when there's roughly the same amount of coins, but there's way more demand, the price increases naturally.
As for the answer the op suggests, I disagree. It IS true that fiat value decreases, and $100 in 2010 is around $143 today if we adjust for inflation. But then there's another thing to consider: purchasing power. Nowadays, you can buy a car with 1 Bitcoin. In 2010, it was far from enough to buy even a single pizza.

Bitcoin itself isn't a scam, and calling it so is just a mistake based on confusing Bitcoin with other things (other crypto projects or scammers who take BTC from people).
But I also think there's no sense in convincing people to hold Bitcoin. Financial decisions are personal, and if someone feels uncertain, it makes perfect sense for those people to sell.
But yes, temporary price fluctuations aren't a strong reason to sell and don't mean anything it wrong or riskier than before with Bitcoin.

I think CZ got away with a very modest sentence (if that's the total sentence, based on all charges), good for him. That makes it seem that the crime wasn't a big deal, which can also be good for the reputation of Binance.
But CZ being in prison doesn't mean that Binance will stop working (especially when we're talking about the global exchange) or that people wouldn't be able to use the funds they have there. I'm all for self-custody and I don't keep funds on exchanges, but I'm just pointing out that this particular news on CZ probably doesn't affect the money on the exchange.

14. Alexandre Pantoja
13. Jose Aldo     
12. Vitor Petrino
11. Michel Pereira
10. Caio Borralho
9. Joanderson Brito
8. Iasmin Lucindo
7. Myktybek Orolbai
6. William Gomis
5. Joaquim Silva
4. Mauricio Ruffy
3. Dione Barbosa
2. Ismael Bonfim
1. Kevin Borjas

NOT go the Full Distance 7

Game 1:  48, 23'
Game 2:  48, 18'

1. Canelo
2. 1
3. SD

The op is reflecting upon the increases and decreases in national economies, but then jumps to a conclusion about Bitcoin. National fiat currencies are kind of tied to national economies, so they are directly affected by what's happening in those countries. And yet, fiat doesn't normally grow in value, as that would be deflation. So when things are going well, fiat loses a bit of value, and things are bad, fiat loses a lot of value. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is actually growing over time, not just in capitalization but also in price, but it's not tied to any national economy, and it doesn't even always follow global economic trends.