Indeed. One of the key factors will be how accessible/liquid it will be on the open markets. How and where will it trade vs other pairs.
If it's only available to hold in select wallets such Calibra, than very little impact.

Indeed. The current trend is the movement to "perceived" safe assets such as gold, T-bonds and fiat currencies such as CHF and YEN. Some investors do have residuals in BTC, but these are already invested and won't move anytime soon.
This is in anticipation of a next bust of the global economy, and that capital will stay put for a while. This may or may not happen. If nothing comes to past, then the capital will re-enter the market in due time. If something does happen, well.. the same, but with a longer timeframe. Regardless investors want dry powder, and they want it now.

To put it simply, its unlikely BTC will reach a new high until the S&P500 reaches a new high.
A worldwide financial calamity may not be as positive for the health of BTC as many may think.

That's some interesting point.
Most people worry about the use of ICOs in the context of money laundering / terrorist finance, which is quite unfounded. Those are trivial amounts compared to the big picture, and quite easy to trace for investigation purposes at high levels. Most of those activities probably use regular US dollars and plain vanilla banks (just look at the all the scandals. One after the other - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/17/deutsche-bank-faces-action-over-20bn-russian-money-laundering-scheme).

Data breaches are nothing new after all (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronshevlin/2019/08/01/after-the-capital-one-data-breach),
but very little is said about the use of collected identification documents by ICOs (even if they never raise).
That's highly sensitive data that can be used to impersonate and do KYC in other institutions (more-so than a simple social security number). If this indeed is the case, I wonder what's the extent of the database and the price per individual.

Yes, in terms of both inflation and Purchasing power of goods.
If everyone is assumed to earn 1000 USD a month onwards, the purchasing power of 1000 USD would drop (even excluding base inflation).
Let's say I'm a business selling groceries, I may be tempted to raise prices of goods as I can assume people have a higher level of disposable income to buy. This is specially true for low-value commodity goods. Nowadays the lowest expected baseline is zero and the average is the medium salary.
Inflation-wise, this decrease in PPI has been happening already for decades (just compare the purchasing power of 1000USD in 1960 vs now).
I just think it would compound to the issue at a faster rate. I also agree there are mitigation measures that could be enacted to control rapid inflation, price & rent controls, and more. But those measures might not be universally well received by people and business alike (generating other unintended effects).

Indeed, we could set a reasonable amount. If we consider 1000 USD / month in all states, then one of the incentives is for people that don't want to work to move to places where they can maximize their purchasing power (eg: countryside, away from metropolitan centres). This could actually decreased homelessness in big metropolis and decrease pressure on services & infrastructure. All states would need to agree, and some would be subsidized by the Federal Government if needed (UBI would be handed at a federal level I assume). If so, one of the unintended consequences could be an increased asymmetry between states over time (due to the change of demography and internal economic migration incentives).

Ok, this one can be tricky and I think implementation details would be critical for UBI to work.
For example, if truly unconditional per person and in absence of other welfare programs, then we create a strong incentive to have kids and maximize income per household (not necessarily provide and educate them in the best way). Assuming the best higher education remains private an unaffordable for many, a new generation could grow up with lower skills for the job market, increasing the chances they would rely on UBI and keep unemployed (another compound effect that could strain the system, as more people would draw funds). This would be great for the birth rate though and to be fair aligns quite well with the polarizing future of the job market with increased automation (very high number of non-repetitive low skills & low number of creative specialized ones).
Another issue would be foreign market distortions (assuming a single country implements it)
One could just receive their UBI, fly to Vietnam or a low-cost country and live quite well. If a sufficient number of people opt to do so, this amount to a lot of capital leaving the U.S. economy to foreign countries with no UBI policy (or one with lower thresholds). Again, I concede that this could be mitigated by travel restrictions for UBIs. Possibly withholding the freedom to travel abroad if unemployed or requiring a certain amount of funds.

Any UBI policy would need to be very comprehensively detailed, in order to be resilient, and would need to consider macro-effects on economics, internal & external emigration & immigration policy, population growth & job market prospects, services planning, business incentives and more.
Trust that the UBI policy would not fail would be the last and critical element of the whole endeavour.
If we get a politician who manages to a least try it in my lifetime, I'll eat my hat and give him a satoshi for good measure 

Although there are credible benefits to an UBI program as a full-scale system intended to replace all other wellfare programs, I do see some major issues at the implementation level. Assuming a private sector still exists and no full automation (not feasible in many centuries unless we get AGI):

1) If everyone earns the same minimum base, why wouldn't individual purchasing power decrease as prices increase for goods, services and rent?
Over time this would reduce the purchasing power of the UBI, unless the amount is increased (extra burden on the state) or other price control measures are implemented (creating distortions and a parallel economy).

2) How exactly does one set the fair handout value of the UBI? Lowest common denominator for sustenance, highest wellfare provided?
Does it vary by region/state? (eg: 1000 USD in NY will not get you a lot, but can be enough for a remote place in the countryside).

3) How 'universal" is it? Would it be distributed to "all" people? Whats the criteria exactly?
All citizens? All legal residents? Can one travel? Is one entitled if living abroad? What about dual citizens? (can one claim multiple UBIs?) Is there a minimum age? (eg: if one has 5 teenage kids, can they collect 5 UBIs on their behalf?). Does it stop at a certain age? (eg: how does it work with seniors receiving pensions)?

Just some food for thought 

It’s part of a cycle and really can't be avoided due to the underlying problems and unwillingness to solve them. Especially when nothing was really "fixed" from the last financial crisis.
But one can use the understanding that its coming to better protect and increase the chances of surviving it and prosper in the aftermath.
Many things are different since 2008, with cryptoassets and a more multilateral world.

While civil unrest is certainly nothing positive and bad for HK as a business centre, I think it will lead to more awareness of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
From the protester's side, as a pseudo-anonymous payment method to replace cash transactions. This is key to avoid pervasive surveillance and flagging/targeting is you join or attend legal protests (eg: paying for metro rides, water, food).
Conversely it will also be used by HK residents that may be planning to move abroad due to said unrest. Although capital controls do not apply in the same way they do in mainland china, cryptocurrencies protect agains seizure of funds in the worst case scenario.

Interesting article on how a "synthetic hegemonic currencies" could mitigate some of flaws of our current system.
https://www-coindesk-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.coindesk.com/a-crypto-fix-for-a-broken-international-monetary-system?amp

I strongly believe we are on the last years of the USD as a global reference currency. On the fiat-side the Yuan has been making great strides (despite capital controls), with even a proposal for a yuan-denominated crude oil barrel price. This is complemented by their digital yuan (CBDC) initiative to foster its foreign use as reserve currency in foreign markets.
The process is already underway, and if institutions continue to resist change, the less leverage they will get to enact it once they desperately need it.
The risk is replacing USD hegemony for (e)-Yuan hegemony. I would certainly prefer a more open system of interoperability.

I also believe such systems will need to be interoperable with open market cryptocurrencies at some point. Both can coexist as they serve different purposes.

What do you think?

Indeed. I tend to mostly agree with very few exceptions. Caveat Emptor rule always applies, but there is no standard way to evaluate / conduct due diligence.
Difficult to separate the marketing hype from the network value.

Team experience & profiles - Not a reliable indicator of project success
I've seen projects with teams of highly experience ppl and long resumes fail miserably while teams of humble no-names succeed and gain notoriety.
Having more tech ppl actually working full-time on the project does go a long-way.

Whitepaper - Does not represent anything other than a vision. Not to be relied for ROI purposes.

Corporate backing - Not a necessary guarantee of success, as many companies are keen to capitalize on marketing hype for stock valuation purposes or other

Clear use case - Most "clear" use cases today were only "obvious" in hindsight a few years afterwards.

The best projects are usually bland, boring stuff that takes time and effort to build, not very conductive to a media hype frenzy of revolutionizing/disrupting.
Think low-key projects raising low to medium amounts for a well-defined business-case.
Building stuff takes time, patience and hard work. Again, not rly aligned with pump&dump high-speculatory environment.

A project still alive and active after 2 years, with paying customers and revenue stream (from network, fees, etc) and a committed team.
That's the hallmark of success. That must come first so that the tokeneconomics fall in place.

Yeah, looking for a revamped methodology for years now. They should have tweaked it ages ago.
Liquidity should be a prominent factor for coins, as well as the number of markets served and DAU (for exchanges).
Not worried about fake volumes, as those have costs for the parties involved, cannot be kept forever and tend to fade as markets mature.
Overall a good overdue move to bring more clarity for all.

I see some individuals investors taking away money from stocks & bonds into cryptocurrencies.
That's for sure, but that would be tiny percentage with limited monetary impact.

Currently most institutional portfolios I've seen, cryptocurrency is less than 0.01%, as a high-risk asset to maximize returns and diversify.
Why not increase it further? Because after a point, the curve inverts and the systemic risk introduced by cryptoassets outweighs the diversification benefits. If anything, we have been slowly reducing exposure, not increasing; while also dumping GBP and increasing exposure to low volatility currencies such as Yen

When we have a severe market crash, the tendency is to flee to safer assets, not plunging into more uncertainty & risk (except for a few market contrarians, but those already made their move long ago). It's not rational but human nature.
I don't know a single institutional fund manager who would increase their risk potential in a downturn..even if its the right thing in hindsight...as they might as well lose their job in the worst time possible and a get a taint on their reputation. The scope of actions of a fund manager is severely constrained after all.. you don't get to do what you want... I wish.
Funds will probably do what traditionally has been done before and invest in safe assets with low volatility. That means fleeing to gold, US Gov Bonds, CHF, Yen, some real estate.

I really don't see a favourable direct correlation between economic war and bitcoin price.
Bitcoin in its current form is still too small to be used as an economic weapon between such big economies as China and the U.S.
As both trade blows, international investors would divert their portfolio to low volatility (perceived) safe assets, such as gold, Japanese Yen and the Swiss Franc.
A portion of that might actually be diverted away from BTC, diminishing liquidity, but as a marginal fraction.
Bitcoin's lack of central authority is what gives it its resilience, but at the same time prevents its stability. Nothing to do with adoption or externalities. Its pure supply and demand.

In theory it should be decided according to various economic goals, including target interest rate, inflation, expected growth, GDP, foreign trade, FX, foreign reserves and others.
In practice, as a government body / central bank you can do whatever you like (with corresponding consequences of course)

Yes, pretty much the same hyperinflation effects as last time. Just with digital "printing", instead of a physical one.
Very sad.
Best thing for the population would be to use alternative open digital currencies for daily transactions and assume the current value of RTGS is zero.
Once a hyperinflation cycle starts all trust is broken and its only downhill from there. Might as well scrap the current national currency again and use something that works.

Indeed, for many fiat money is a "bubble"
But which long-term complex economic system isn't?
Its about how long they last until they are replaced with something more intricate and complex.
So far the Bretton Woods / oil-backed USD / debt-fuelled model has held. Cracks were forming before cryptocurrencies showed up. More are showing faster than they can be fixed.
Cash is being digitally "printed" like crazy, while paper bills are being slowly discontinued. An opaque game of numbers.
With all its flaws, cryptocurrency is the path forward for greater accountability, freedom and transparency.

I don't think Hollywood has what it takes to make a decent movie about the theme of Bitcoin and crypto without derailing into cliche tasteless action flick.
It would be too much to cram into a 90-minute show.

Now a Netflix (non-documental) action series on the overall theme of cryptocurrencies, that would be something else.

Lots of possibilities. Mysterious creators, enormous portable and untraceable wealth that can fit in your pocket, exotic locations, multiple government agencies competing against each other, rogue state actors, the effects of unknown technology, disruption of financial system, personal tragedy, human greed and ambition. Not even touching ICOs and many other topics

Binge-worthy for sure.  

Although we don't know for sure the impact on Bitcoin, one thing is sure: developed economies are stagnating and the pace of innovation is decreasing.
Negative interest rates are a form of nudge to stimulate investment, pushing towards higher risk and higher return, instead of negative yields.
BTC and other cryptos are not correlated with the performance of traditional financial assets, making it a possible attractive investment for a diversification strategy.
It can serve as a safe asset that cannot be seized, which is a key features in a multi-lateral world in turmoil (trade wars, proxy wars, sanctions).
Since BTC is decentralized and not bound to the performance of a specific economy, it's likely to be more appealing than ever.

While it is certainly possible that will happen in the future, the question how will we get there?
From a non-investment perspective, lets focus on 4 main issues:
1) Lack of volatility
3) Acceptance by businesses
2) Acceptance by users
4) Non-interference by governments

1) Lack of volatility is a no-brainer for any successful crypto to be a reliable means of exchange in regions with economic stability and banking.
Sure, we have stablecoins (fiat-backed, gold-backed, basket-backed, algorithmic) serving as a bridge for exchanges, but at present none have enough scale to replace a regular fiat currency (liquidity-wise) nor have the transparent governance mechanisms to resist systemic shocks (trust-wise). Libra, if it works as envisioned might actually work on this front.
2) Use and acceptance by businesses (merchants) is quite a crucial factor often overlooked by our community. P2P transactions, volume and liquidity are great, but if no outlet accepts it, you still need to convert through an intermediary. Payment provider integration is likely to be the case forward here, as accepting on-chain payment is not cost-effective nor scalable to multiple chains (plus connecting to exchange to manage balance sheet).  It needs to happen at scale, ruling out small shops as enablers of scale and entering the territory of medium-to-large business. At that level the bottleneck to decision-making process is compliance department and top management. A compelling business reason needs to be presented why they should integrate a new provider, with expected revenue increase. The best way forward here is to support a crypto-payment provider that provides the best service and helping them grow. This can be done by constantly nagging your favourite business to integrate provider XYX (not a specific currency like BTC). This will be a long-term effort and the community really needs to step up on this.
3) This ties in with the previous one. If a business adopts a new payment provider and sees no usage, they will drop it and mark it as a failed experiment. Usage by mainstream users is crucial, generating "sales" volume that can maintain the option compelling. Having a great UX and consumer-friendly is also key here (think of PayPal and their refund protection. If I get scammed I want to contact someone and get my money back. If this is not possible, I'm gonna leave a bad review on the merchant and we all know business LOVE bad reviews).
4) This one is the one we can least influence, but quite important for business acceptance. If governments pass regulation clarifying their stance on cryptoassets (not all are made alike), especially payment-oriented tokens and corresponding tax treatments, this will gradually erase the negative ecosystem connotations and decrease risk of adopting new technology.

Just my 2 cents  Might be wrong though 

Yes, here to stay for a long while. Bitcoin volatility is a result of Bitcoin fundamental value drivers (varying supply and demand on an open market).
This is no stablecoin with pegged value, nor a stock tied to a company's future revenues.
How much volatility? Hard to predict. There is no reliable VIX to Bitcoin, but could change if ETFs are introduced (feel free to correct me if wrong here).
Long-term (10 to 20yr plus) is likely the volatility could be lower, due to block reward halving and stabilization of new supply vs existing supply.

While currently there is no evidence of direct Chinese state interference with the Bitcoin network, this could become a credible attack vector in the future.
I believe its economic value its still too low to be of real concern, becoming more so as it grows (and likewise the same for other state actors).

There will the serious possibility of covert tampering using state-own-enteprises to control miners while disrupt non-chinese miners, using the GFW for technical interference, and undermining consensus by destabilization.
There was an excellent paper on this topic published by Ben Kaiser, Mireya Jurado & Alex Ledger (circa 2018):

The Looming Threat of China: An Analysis of Chinese Influence on Bitcoin
https://[Suspicious link removed]/2Yvlg74

Check it out if your keen