It's considered the same as an in-kind transfer for stocks from one broker to another.
Again, the understanding of "property" is evolving in this environment, and there are areas of regulatory uncertainty (such as synthetic assets from staking collateral in money markets). However, transferring from one wallet to another is pretty safe territory.
For the first question, it depends if you bought the fifty cars for $100 each, or if your basis is less than that. Cost basis is key here. And no to the second question.
The IRS has designed crypto as a property, so you are subject to paying capital gains (or claiming capital losses) whenever you sell, convert, pay or earn. Converting one crypto to another (or to USD) is a taxable event, while transferring BTC in one wallet to another wallet is not (since you keep the same property). Further details at https://www.coinbase.com/bitcoin-taxes#paytaxes.
Agree that today, Ethereum transaction fees are terrible. But I'm quite optimistic for the future. First we have Layer-2 rollups: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/layer-2-scaling/. Even setting sharding and rollups aside, Eth2 and PoS rather than PoW should give a significant boost to transaction throughput. I don't see bitcoin competing in that domain, it's taken on the role of "digital gold" rather than "world computer".
Ethereum is a much better place to build apps and tokens. The ERC-20 standard has been game-changing. Currently 19 tokens at $100M+ market caps, with more to come.
Steph Curry is 6'3", in the 98th percentile for height. Wouldn't quite call him short. And there are only ~2,800 7-footers in the world, many of which are in the NBA. So tall players - meaning over 7 feet - are extremely rare.
This is Berkson's Paradox. Even if coding competition performance correlates positively with job performance in the general population (which it certainly does, given that most people can't code), selecting for this attribute in the hiring process leads to a negative correlation among those hired.
It was certainly a move to stabilize the stock market and Treasury market. However, having a reserve asset that steadily, stably climbs lower is not a store of value by any definition.
China is no longer a net buyer of Treasuries. They have begun to sell off their position over the last 5 years. And the renminbi is actually quite strong lately, the Chinese government is maintaining positive interest rates and allowing corporate defaults instead of money-printing.
There are two concepts here: medium of exchange and store of value. Currently the US dollar (and Treasury bonds) do both. It's unlikely that the US dollar disappears as a medium of exchange, though there are steps being taken here, such as China + Russia pricing their oil trade in yuan rather than dollars. Yet with M2 money supply increasing 25% in the last year and the DXY crashing by 10%, the US dollar is no longer a reliable store of value.
The larger shift is out of Treasury bonds into different reserve assets, such as commodities (oil, gold, alternative currencies). That one is very real.