Very interesting topic because do we agree that betting against the majority in sports-betting will lead to profitable results overall? I'm not sure that's true. In fact, most of the times if many people are betting on the same thing, it means the bet is underrated, and hence so many people are betting on that.

I've never tried betting on those popular betting options because most of the time I am very certain what I want to bet on, which mostly is e-sports like Dota 2 and League of Legends. E-sports are not yet famous enough to get front-page recognition or be called popular options.

When we describe Xgram as a privacy-focused platform, we mean that standard swaps do not require account registration or the creation of a user profile. Users can perform exchanges directly from their wallets.
At the same time, as with most exchange services, transactions may go through AML risk checks. In rare cases, if a transaction is flagged as high-risk, the liquidity provider executing the swap may request additional verification.
Xgram operates as a technology platform-aggregator that connects users with various liquidity providers who perform the exchanges.

As for monitoring platforms, we are open to cooperation with reliable services and are gradually expanding our presence across different exchange monitoring platforms.

That's what gambling is, but there could be gamblers that are going to play safe, just enough for them to experience gambling itself and then going to the motion of like betting all their money and risking everything. Maybe they have experience worst before, that's why they are reluctant now and hesitant to put all their money on the line.

It might have to reflex on our decision making. Maybe we really don't look at it, but if we examine it more carefully, our decisions in life could be gambling at all. Or we might be that there are gamblers that are aggressive, but then when it comes to life decisions, they are somewhat conservative.

Yeah, it's the same trade-off, just in a different package.

If I remember right, first it was trusting those early online wallets, then it was the new exchanges that swore they were better than Gox. Now it's institutions trusting custodians with their clients' coins. I get why it feels safer...

the names are bigger, they wear suits. But the risk is exactly the same. You're holding an IOU for bitcoin, not the real thing, which took me a while to figure out back in the day.

And those promises have a habit of breaking when things get ugly.

The volumes are quite decent. Institutions have been mostly buying and occasionally selling bitcoin almost on daily basis.
Another advantage of having ETFs is to not worry about the private keys since we the institutions are holding the custody of their bitcoins.
We can say ETFs have it's own pros and cons and while some prefer the real bitcoins, some others might prefer ETFs which is not that bad at all.

Spot on, Darker45. This 'shortcut culture' is a classic case of Technological Solutionism: applying a tool before diagnosing the root cause.

​In my QHSE management experience, AI is often used as a 'miracle pill' to mask structural flaws. But technology is merely a force multiplier; if your process is broken, you simply accelerate your failure at a premium cost.

​Whether in crypto or industry, trying to decouple Wealth from Discipline leads to the same result: expensive noise. True Alpha remains in the 'boring' work of DCA and fundamental analysis that most try to bypass

You right, because staying longer in the game is like going deeper to the button. You can't be expected to be safe when you have practically dedicated all your meaningful time in gamble, you should set a limited time that will still make you stay in charge of your game without crossing the line of addiction.

Moreover, gamble is a thing of fun and should be done at our free hour and not as a daily job, therefore when ever am not that busy with something meaningful with my time is literally when I do gamble so I wouldn't get things mixed up.

Maybe his name was brought up by someone close to the power broker of boxing today and so he approved him knowing the Usyk has a good chance to beat him and at the same time, fans will see that Verhoeven is a legend and could give problems to Usyk in this fight. Sometimes you just got lucky if you're well known and maybe you have connections too that's why he as chosen. But as far as Usyk goes, this is just another fight, just to get his body busy and he won't have the ring rust if ever he will go and fight against pro-boxer in the Heavyweight division. Although it seems that he has clean this division, there are still interim champions that he need to face to really cemented his legacy as the best Heavyweight boxer in this era.

Yeah, that must be it. Most of the ETF's already share their information on how much they buy and sell and their size, and it's evident that they are a lot more holding than the retail investors like us, because they are already rich so they do not need to sell. Still as far as I have seen, there are people there who sell too, but they do not react the way we do in market movements, it's much smaller, because rich people do not care about the daily movements, they care about a decade, and that's what makes retail investor not earn as much as them.

If bitcoin investments somehow manage to show another 10x returns, then we can see people rush behind all type of bitcoin opportunities and ETF also may get revived from that but until then we are going to see that ETF is slowly losing its attractiveness.

I think he meant from the craze on social media, which is lower than before, because he literally can't mean by volume, most of the volume in bitcoin is coming from these ETFs. Although more harm has also been done by them if they done good too. ETFs at the start were in hype, everyone was talking about them, how it can be good or bad. It was an awesome time.
The
Bitcoin price was shooting like a rocket and everything was so bullish. At that time, many made huge profits. But now, as predicted, new users like to invest via Bitcoin ETFs because they really think it is wise to avoid the struggle, which in reality is not a struggle of managing the keys and wallets.

Even if we think about running the tourism industry in conflict areas, I don't think tourists will go there. Due to the regional situation, there is an unstable situation throughout the Middle East. The people living there are very scared in this situation. They are thinking about leaving the country, on the contrary, it is unimaginable for tourists to come there. Every person loves his life and loving his life can never go to a risky place for vacation.

It is not really a competitor though, inasmuch you could call anything that could be adopted by merchants competitors to Bitcoin. Stablecoins, CBDCs and all centralized shitcoins are not competitors to Bitcoin -- they are entirely different even if they can fulfill similar functionality and use cases but in a centralized way.

They could already do this were merchants more educated, smarter, and more long-term oriented. 

You completely missed the point of this thread.

How Bitcoin was designed has nothing to do with market volatility, they are as irrelevant from each other as they could be.

Nonsense. If the volatility does not reduce, Bitcoin is going to die. Read other posts before you write your replies here. The numbers have been presented, they are not refutable.

Well, the video they released showed a spacecraft flying into a ship that was sunk 80 years ago, so there's that...

The Abraham Lincoln has a whole lot of American soldiers on it.  If it was struck with missiles, every news outlet in the world would be showing those images and blaming Trump for the loss.

I would also say it is possible that both the news and the non-event are true.  An aircraft carrier can both be attacked by missiles and be fine.

I spent five years in the Navy I checked quite a few sources that most people do not know about and I have no proof and no disproof which is very interesting in and of itself.

Same with Covid 19 before. We must not relate Bitcoin to any of this. Bitcoin is decentralized; no one can control it.
So for me, if the price of Bitcoin reacts to these geopolitical tensions, so be it, because even non Bitcoin market also behaves like that.

So if for some people may see this as opportunity to buy more cheap Bitcoins, then that's good.

Thank you! 

I wasn't aware the Trezor also used third party apps, buy if I'm going to have to use an exchange anyways, I'd rather use one that gives me more security and lets me work with thousands of coins, as opposed to just about a dozen. 

Exactly!
I don't know how is it an "illegal" gambling when it is part of the game. I may agree that it is a form of gambling, since players will need to pay to get random stuff. If being lucky, they'll get stuff which could have a great monetary value when being sold to other players P2P, or could be used to improve the character's appearance or attributes.
So, If they considered this as illegal gambling, then I don't know how they call that in-game betting system Dota2 used to, when there's a major tournaments. Those arcana and immortal skins were expensive before. I have not played the game for quite a long time already, so I'm not sure whether it still exist.

In fact, the price of bitcoin has risen after the US-Iran conflict. Could it be that some people are turning to bitcoin as an alternative?

I don't know if oil prices are starting to rise now? I know that the Strait of Hormuz is a route for intercontinental trade, with at least 20% of trade passing through it, according to the news. Other reports say that the Strait of Hormuz is being heavily guarded by Iranian forces.

This has caused confusion. There are reports on X that the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was attacked by missiles from Iran, while major media outlets are saying the Abraham Lincoln is fine. I don't know which is true.

Do you get the point? What I may consider "out of place", may actually be a comfort zone to anyone else. Personally, I can't gamble on a treadmill (let's start off with your example). Sounds really uncomfortable to do, just by typing it. I'm not an Olympic medallist, so I don't have to multi-task -- that's like trying to gamble while on the steering wheels, on a high way.

There's a level of relaxation that I need to make any selections. If something's bothering me, I don't gamble. I sort out whatever it is. The dopamine fix, for me, has to be more of a relaxing procedure.