I also have a number of issues against these ultra rich people, but I think this isn't a simple black and white issue. In the first place, how did these people become billionaires? Is it because of cheating? Is it because of unfair advantages? Or do they deserve all the richness that they have because they were industrious, innovative, brilliant, and so on?

I agree that many of these ultra rich people are building their wealth out of the hardships of others, but shouldn't we also take a look at these hardships? Why are they poor, to begin with? Are they not partly responsible for their own poverty?

Or how about the authorities, those who are responsible to promote everybody's welfare despite the inequalities?

This was coming, of course, but it's still sad to see one of the last exchanges standing finally go. But I don't agree with others calling KuCoin a non-KYC exchange. KuCoin isn't like AgoraDesk, for example. KYC has already been there as part of KuCoin's ToS long before this announcement. That it offered a certain limit to unverified users didn't make it a non-KYC exchange. I was a KuCoin user because of that feature until I was asked to submit KYC last year.

It's going to be an option, of course. If a time comes when I really needed money and I'm left with no choice but to dip into my Bitcoin stash, I'd probably be looking into it. It would either be selling or using it as collateral for a loan or pawning it. I'd be choosing whichever is best in my circumstances. 

I'm not sure if pawnshops here in my country are legally allowed to accept Bitcoin as a guarantee, but I suppose it's already happening as far as individual private deals are concerned. Also, Bitcoin largely remains a thing to be studied.

Online, however, it's a lot easier for anybody to use Bitcoin as a form of collateral. It's not much different from pawning it.

A lot of people exaggerate Bitcoin, its potentials and relevance. Whenever I read exaggerated remarks on Bitcoin especially coming from somebody popular, I can only cringe in silence. There are even those who argue that Satoshi should be given a Nobel prize. There are those who claim that Bitcoin is one of the greatest inventions in human history, or the second greatest in the 21^st century, next to the internet. I don't know, but whenever I go out into the real world, Bitcoin is more alien than aliens.

I chose sports betting and blackjack, but if I were asked to vote only one, I would only have chosen sports betting. I included blackjack because that's the latest casino game that I was fond of. But for now I don't have much time to play casino games anymore. There are other things I also enjoy doing aside from gambling.

The good thing with sports betting is that it doesn't take away much time from you. After you place your bet, it's done. You don't even have to watch the game if you're busy. I'm also not heavily into live betting anymore. Plus you have a strong basis for you bets.

Hey there, Freedom4All! When getting a loan and you offer a collateral, it's actually not about what you risk, but what guarantee the lender has so that even if you run away, the lender wouldn't be financially hurt.

So, if you provide your real name, address, phone number, bank account numbers, passwords, PINs, website and various other online account access, and so on; the real names of your friends and family, all their personal information, you are indeed already risking so much. And no sane man would risk those. But the lender doesn't actually care about those.

Probably because proof of reserve isn't the primary consideration when users choose which centralized exchange to trust. And rightly in a way, because these proofs, popularized by Binance if I'm not mistaken, don't really prove much. Kraken, for example, didn't submit theirs because they see no point in this financial reserves thing shown in Coinmarketcap.

If I were an exchange and I provide an address that has $1 billion in Bitcoin in it, what does it actually say? It can be verified by anybody, yes, so what? Does everybody know as well that my liabilities actually total $2 billion? But supposing I'm also providing a breakdown of my liabilities and it totals $800 million, would that be enough? Still not. How would you know that I included all the deposits? Even supposing I included everything, how can you be sure that such an amount is really owned by me, or that it's not offered as a collateral or something like that, or, in short, that it isn't encumbered in one way or another?

All I'm saying is that this proof of reserve thing is not really the "Don't trust, Verify!" kind of thing.

I remember when Gensler was still a candidate for the position of SEC chairman; everybody was excited. Crypto supporters were all praises for Gensler for being open-minded and a crypto supporter himself. Heart were broken later on.

But I wonder, is it normal for a congressman to file a bill and propose that a chairman of an independent government agency be kicked out? Reading the 7 grounds posted in the OP, it seems they aren't strong enough.

If we compare these allegations to Gensler's seemingly solid background, it seems Gensler would stay. So far, Gensler continues to enjoy the trust and confidence of the president.

It wasn't just a couple of million dollars. The mistake wouldn't have exploded had the amount was that small. But the amount was a staggering $400-million at least. A petty mistake that could have cost the exchange hundreds of millions? Something's fishy. And why would Gate.io's address be a whitelist on Crypto.com's withdrawal? Moreover, is it a coincidence that such huge erroneous transaction happened around the time everyone demanded proof of reserves from centralized exchanges like them? So I don't believe what they're saying.

In fairness, however, despite all the challenges and controversies that Gate.io is going through, it hasn't bowed down yet. But we shouldn't be waiting for it to happen before we decide to withdraw all our funds from the platform.

I'd say, no.

If you proceed with Bitcoin trading even if you know that you are emotional and weak, could easily be swayed from objectivity, has very low risk-tolerance, easily panics, and so on, you will lose.

But if you've gone through losses, it would either be that you learn lessons, get better, and toughen up or you will continue to lose until you will finally be discouraged enough that you call it quits.

But, is there any other way to become a good trader? You will probably start fearful and weak; that's normal. But surely you can minimize the risks by doing some research. Also, after studying, by the time you do actual trading, you will start small, of course. You could even start with demo trading. So there are actually preparations to somehow address your concerns as a beginner trader.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you meant that you're hoping to make more BTC by betting, you're probably mistaken. While I don't disagree that you may earn through betting, the truth is that gambling isn't a way to make money. You will probably lose more than win in gambling. That includes sports betting.

More bets means more chances of winning? Possibly. But it also means more chances of losing. So, if you want to acquire as much Bitcoin as possible before the bull run takes full speed, I think you better try to make as much money as possible and buy Bitcoin. Stack Sats before they get so expensive. Gambling isn't stacking Sats; it is losing them.

I think my first purchase of Bitcoin was way back 2016. If I remember it right I got it from somebody close to me. I didn't buy it from a centralized exchange or a decentralized exchange. I gave him money; he sent the coins directly to my wallet.

I'm generally a hodler, but it doesn't mean I don't ever spend my coins. I'm a hodler because the bulk of my coins I intend to keep for a long time. But it doesn't mean I don't have a certain amount of Bitcoin to spend or convert or even trade once in a while.

I don't know why it is severely misleading when it was all there is to it. Coinbase indeed secured a favorable ruling from the US supreme court. But it wasn't against a user like you said. You're the one misleading. The case was against the district courts of California.

The SEC vs. Coinbase; that's another thing. Apparently, I wasn't talking about it.

I don't know how convinced you are that Coinbase will be gone by next year, but if you want to put your money where your mouth is, I'm willing to bet against that. Not only will Coinbase stay by next year, it will stay in the year 2025 and even beyond that.

That's not art for me. I'm seeing exploitation, oppression. But I'm not simply speaking of laborers working. That's not necessarily unfair. They got their level of skills. They gotta find work where they function best. That's all right provided they're not overworked in an unsafe and inhuman condition, and extremely underpaid.

How can you not consider the masses the cash cows of businesses when they are comprising almost 60% of the entire population?

Jermall Charlo may be a good and powerful boxer, but I think Canelo will easily dismantle him in this fight. Like other matches such as the Davis-Garcia fight, this match may only be exciting if we look at the plain numbers or their records and accomplishments. But if we take a closer look at each one of them, it may not be a good match.

When Charlo defended his title against a nobody in Montiel and only got a UD, it spoke a lot. That was way back June of 2021. From that time on, Jermall was nowhere to be found. He wasn't fighting in the ring anymore. We learned that he was fighting another battle: mental health.

So if I were to take into consideration that Jermall is inactive for more than 2 years before fighting Canelo, that he has just faced mental health problems, that he's moving up in weight class probably because of all those years of inactivity, I'd totally understand that this early Canelo is 1.42 favorite while Charlo is 2.82 underdog.

While this may not be as big of a deal as it seems, since this is the first time that the US supreme court rules on a case involving cryptocurrency, it's probably worth taking note. Coinbase winning a legal battle in no less than the supreme court and against the lower courts in California will have significant implications.

For a brief backgrounder, Coinbase faced a couple of cases in California involving a user who lost money and "deceptive advertising." Coinbase, then, argued that the cases be dismissed because it's part of the signed user agreement that such complaints be settled through arbitration. The request for arbitration was denied. Coinbase then appealed and requested that while the appeal is in progress the case proceedings be stopped. Once again, California’s district courts decided against Coinbase.

Coinbase ran to the supreme court. There, with a close 5-4 decision, Coinbase prevailed over the California district court's decisions.

---

Sources:

1. https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-supreme-court-halts-coinbase-cases-first-crypto-ruling
2. https://blockworks.co/news/coinbase-supreme-court-victory

Huge! The poor masses have so vital a function in the economy. In the first place, they are the milking cows of businessmen. I can only speak for my country, though.

Here, the masses comprise the huge consuming public. The capitalists here are providing products which are mainly adjusted to the lifestyle of the masses. The masses are poor. They can't buy goods in large amounts, for example, so everything are offered in tiny amounts, in sachets, in little packets.

Moreover, these poor masses are the ones who can easily be exploited as cheap labor force. Businesses here offer tiring jobs with very low compensation. The masses can't easily complain because they need to eat. Jobs are scarce. It would be a larger disaster for the worker and his/her family if he/she is kicked out because of whining. 

Another thing, the regulators can't just fight for the welfare of the poor masses. They're paid. The leaders? They're also on the payroll.

I guess we have different ways of looking at it. We probably also have different experiences. As for me, I could even say that in a hundred ICOs, 90% of them are most likely scam, unrealistic, shabby, unsustainable projects. I encountered so many seemingly promising ICOs way back in 2017 and 2018. Most of them are dead. The same is true with airdrops. Retrodrop wasn't a big thing before.



Long term for me is at least 5 years.

I wonder, do you think it's even riskier if you're only relying on the charts?


I hope you'll prove to be right in the end, although I really think 20% is rather too low. It's too optimistic for me especially considering that you probably end up with around 150 projects. But I wish your portfolio the best of luck. I trust that you must have learned a lot in your years in crypto.

What do you mean you had no choice? I haven't used MEXC exchange but I suppose they have a built-in support system. If there is no live chat, perhaps there is a feature for users to create a ticket and inform the platform of certain issues. If both are non-existent, I assume they indicate their official channels in their own site. They probably provide their email or Twitter or Facebook or other official communication lines. So why do you have to go to Telegram and ask for help? Shouldn't we always transact through official channels?

That is indeed noticeable. With more than 100 projects to monitor, I don't think it is easy. The risk is certainly high. But since the portfolio is designed for medium term or for a few years, there's probably not much pressure to keep yourself abreast of each project's development.

I'd be interested to look back to this portfolio in 2025 and see how this pans out. My own experience tells me that in a portfolio full of altcoins, you'd be lucky enough to still have half of it retaining some worth by the time you want to liquidate them years later.

But perhaps with these hundred different altcoins, many taken from top 400, small cap and testnet projects, and even ICO\IDO\IEO, it is probably enough that a handful made it big time for the entire portfolio to register net positive.