The negative impact was noticeable, a very sharp drop of the price. But it started recovering the very next day, and then returned to the pre-Cramer level in 5 days. That kind of resilience of Bitcoin is very nice to witness. It means Bitcoin's price is still vulnerable to some people's opinions, but that doesn't trigger a bear market, the drop is manageable, and full recovery (to a price level before a certain opinion makes its impact) is very fast. From the long-term perspective, these small fluctuations caused by certain people don't matter.

Not all the points are equally bad. I think the recipe for success is moderation. You can spend some money on unnecessary expenses immediately if you want to treat yourself, but not to prove a point to others. Living on one source of income can be very stable and great if you have a very good, well-paid job, and you're confident that you won't be fired from it. That can be more financially reliable than multiple unstable sources of income. Giving something back to your friends, family, and community is nice, as long as you can afford it without issues. Getting involved in some important matters, even when they don't directly concern you, isn't bad per se either.

Oh wow, that was quite a hack. I understand why someone would do that, but it proves, once again, how bad security is on Twitter, and that even official Twitter accounts can't be fully trusted because you don't know if the message was actually written by the owner. Still, even a scandal like this puts additional pressure in the SEC, making people once again focus on the matter of ETFs. It's also a good way for the SEC to test the reaction of people in case they approve an ETF. So, who knows, maybe it was intentional, just to test it out and then see how people also react to the refutation.

I think Bitcoin adoption is a great choice for special economic zones around the world. It's relatively new, it attracts a lot of attention, and it's something many people want to experiment with. So it's just a natural match to make BTC adoption easy in places that exist specifically to focus on financial innovation, to let people experience the joy of relatively low taxes and an easier way of doing business than in many other places around the world.
This special zone alone isn't much, but if others follow suit, it can have significant impact.

Some countries choose to be strict toward Bitcoin, and it's up to people in those countries to change that if they care enough to do that. Overall, I think we're still far from the world the op is describing as a dystopian future. Centralized entities like exchanges demand KYC, but there are other options. And non-custodial wallets are perfectly legal, as they should be. I don't think there are strong arguments for outlawing them, and I couldn't find articles that would support the idea that such a ban is something that can actually happen in major Western economies.

Just another thread with motivation advice that doesn't seem to be backed up by anything. While I agree that the fear of failure is an obstacle and something people need to overcome by focusing on the positive sides and the bigger picture. But that doesn't always work, and it's not the only thing that stops people from making their dreams come true. It doesn't work when a person's goal is unrealistic. Maybe it's someone who keeps losing while gambling but believes that a win is just around the corner. Maybe it's a person who want to become an Olympic champion without having the required health and physical qualities to make it. As for other things that make dreams unachievable, it can be unfortunate circumstances, societal prejudices, accidents, etc.
So it's not all that simple, and sometimes it can be helpful to set more realistic goals and learn to be proud of those small achievements, instead of beating oneself up over not reaching the highest things.

12. Magomed Ankalaev
11. Manel Kape
10. Gabriel Benitez
9. Ricky Simon
8. Brunno Ferreira
7. Waldo Cortes-Acosta
6. Preston Parsons
5. Marcus McGhee
4. Farid Basharat
3. Jean Silva
2. Tom Nolan
1. Joshua Van

NOT go the Full Distance 9

Game 1:  24, 22'
Game 2:  24, 28'

Thinking that more than 50% of people use Bitcoin, even if it's 50% of Internet users, is just not supported by any evidence. The Internet is used by over 5 billion people, so that would mean that Bitcoin must be used by at least 2.5 billion people, while it's clear that we aren't even near to 1 billion.
But as for promotion, there are some problems with that. Since many people focus on the investment side of Bitcoin, promotion of Bitcoin often feels to others like evidence that Bitcoin is a scam, a ponzi that its adopters promote because they need new members to join. But Bitcoin isn't like that, so it's important not to contribute to negative sentiments by overselling Bitcoin to those around us. I've lightly introduced perhaps up to 20 people to Bitcoin, by mentioning it when it seemed relevant. Some became active users, some forgot all about it, some are considering it. That's the way of things, and I think casually making people aware of Bitcoin is enough. I wouldn't go as far as Bitcoin-related merch, logos in social media profiles, etc. It's a personal risk, and it can also have a negative impact.

Let's not forget that Bitcoin, for example, can be significantly bigger, it's just that it's still in the bear market right now. So over a trillion of market capitalization is something Bitcoin had before and can easily have in the future. But 2 trillion or more? I don't know, maybe not in the next couple of years. Funny enough, whether we take the current capitalization or the bullish one, Bitcoin would be #3 in both cases, right after Apple and Microsoft. I'd say it's amazing that Bitcoin is so high, and it shows how serious the crypto market (or, at least, Bitcoin specifically) is.

I don't believe in mindset advice and stuff like that. This post is about "I don't have enough" mindset as the right one. Today I also read a thread that was about not desiring money to become rich, which is sort of the opposite.
People should do whatever feels right and natural to them, whatever has a positive impact on them. Envy is bad, greed is also bad. Having some motivation to obtain more BTC is alright, and being chill about money is alright as well. Moderation (being moderate) is one of the best ideas of humanity, IMO, and it applies in this matter as well as in any other.

I don't think getting rich has anything to do with immunity to money. A lot of people simply are rich and can become richer. They have great initial circumstances that allow them to experiment with investments, obtain great education, hire experts, try building their own businesses etc. because there's wealth in their families. If you're not among such people, you need to beat the odds to do better than your parents did, and that requires both luck and effort. I don't think that having no desire makes an impact here.

The transaction fees aren't fantastic, but they aren't terrible anymore either. You can pay a little less than $3 and be sure you'll get your transaction confirmed within an hour. The number of unconfirmed transactions is almost twice as low as it was a week ago when the op wrote that post.
Still, a lot of people are overpaying for their transactions because, instead of mempool, they're following websites that state average transaction fees, or they go by highest priority recommendations of their wallets, which can be off by a lot.

I don't understand why the first point is named "Predictable BTC loss is destabilizing" because it looks like it's about circulating supply vs total supply of Bitcoin. When people suddenly move coins that haven't been moved in a long time, it doesn't necessarily have a destabilizing impact. Sure, some can get worried that 'a whale' is planning to sell or someone can get excited that someone from the old days actually has access to their coins, but the impact of such speculations is minimal, and some funds just entering circulating supply isn't bad for Bitcoin.
As for #2, I find that impossible. Control over mining is one thing, control over supply of Bitcoin is another thing. 51% in mining doesn't sound surprising, but buying 51% of supply is highly unlikely.
And then the further down the list we go, the more it becomes a wild conspiracy theory.

I agree with the op's sentiment. Money is necessary for survival and for some beneficial things, but it's not the ultimate goal, and life should be spent doing enjoyable things and making a positive impact on those around us. Being rich is not among my life goals at all. I just want to have enough to be able to live a comfortable life, to support my loved ones, to travel occasionally etc. But spending time with my family and friends is more important to me than earning more money because I want to enjoy my life while I can, and just earning more isn't giving much joy because it takes the precious commodity of time that could be spent doing other things. It's hard to remember these things in our capitalist world, but it's important to see money as a means, not a goal.

I don't use centralized exchanges at all. So I keep 90% in my wallet, and maybe around 10% is on crypto gambling websites. When I need to exchange BTC for fiat, I use local exchanges where you don't store money but send it directly to a specific address when placing an order. This way, I get by without using centralized exchanges. I realize that keeping some funds on gambling websites is similar to keeping them on exchanges, but it's very convenient for gambling, so I'm okay with it. It's not a form of storage to me, it's just some funds that are there for gambling, so it's fine.
Keep in mind that wallets can also be different, and centralized wallets have the same issues as exchanges, so, of course, I assume that by wallets you mean non-custodial wallets.

It's a good question, but I don't think this is the problem. The SEC just has a strong view about Bitcoin not being a security and thus not being under their regulations, and ETFs are a way of bringing Bitcoin, at least partially, under their regulations. Bitcoin has a huge market capitalization, so actually manipulating the price by operating big amounts of money is extremely hard. I guess there's no consensus in that regard, but I agree with seoincorporation about the amounts that don't have an impact. So it's not about potential price manipulations, in my opinion.

Bitcoin fees and scalability are a challenge to global adoption in general, but I don't think there's a strong correlation between adoption rate and fees when it comes to particular episodes of fees spiking. Sometimes the fees actually go up because people get excited and are trying to use Bitcoin more than before. Sometimes it's people using Bitcoin blockchain for their own weird purposes (like Ordinals), but again, it's not an indicator of adoption slowing down or decreasing.
Even when the fees don't get particularly high, they're too high for small purchases, considering that there are often no fees (for customers) with fiat payments using debit cards. But Bitcoin can still be useful if we consider 2nd-layer solutions, and if we're talking about big purchases where the fees make up a small percentage of the total payment.

Investment is always somewhat risky, but I actually think that investing in Bitcoin isn't that risky. Bitcoin has been growing over time, so it's pretty safe to just wait out the bear markets. Moreover, Bitcoin has high liquidity, so unlike with some other investments (real estate, for example), you don't need to worry about being unable to sell fast when the time is right. Apart from that, Bitcoin is something that doesn't need a third party, you can make an investment yourself and be independent of everyone else in that regard.
So, to me, Bitcoin just isn't that risky, which makes it an attractive investment or at least a savings account.

Bitcoin stability does lead to some stability of the market overall, but many people don't care about that because they don't care about altcoins. This also isn't a simple matter to address for two reasons: stability and altcoins. When it comes to stability, how do we define it? Bitcoin has its ups and downs, so how small should they be and how much can the price change over which periods of time for us to state that Bitcoin is stable? As for altcoins, there are just too many of those, and many have their own patterns that have nothing to do with Bitcoin.