The Bitcoin angle you mention is telling. If the selection of targets extends into ordinary users who have simply attended meetups or declared holdings then this is not a market driven crime where the end goal is efficient theft. Instead it points toward intimidation and control as the primary motive. That changes how it should be understood and addressed because technology alone cannot resolve problems rooted in systemic impunity.
The advice to avoid living in fear is correct from a mental resilience standpoint but only works if paired with concrete preventative measures. Communication protocols and rapid police engagement are essential but the effectiveness of those tools depends entirely on the competence and will of local authorities. In a setting where the justice system fails to act swiftly or decisively the deterrent effect never materializes.
The Bitcoin angle you mention is telling. If the selection of targets extends into ordinary users who have simply attended meetups or declared holdings then this is not a market driven crime where the end goal is efficient theft. Instead it points toward intimidation and control as the primary motive. That changes how it should be understood and addressed because technology alone cannot resolve problems rooted in systemic impunity.
The advice to avoid living in fear is correct from a mental resilience standpoint but only works if paired with concrete preventative measures. Communication protocols and rapid police engagement are essential but the effectiveness of those tools depends entirely on the competence and will of local authorities. In a setting where the justice system fails to act swiftly or decisively the deterrent effect never materializes.