Hm. Kinda? But it relates in my opinion as what he said makes sense when talking about police reform(which is one of the things the George Floyd protesters are fighting for in the first place) and the government in general. This is far better at least compared to that one photo from the protests with one guy holding a "bitcoin fixes this" sign. Now THAT'S unnecessary.

Don't really know anything about this book, so no opinion.

It was vague for sure, but it's really safe to assume that some of the people are protesting not just to solely have revenge for George Floyd(through the riots), but for the government to actually listen and implement a solution. One being, police reform, which looks like is somewhat working: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/500809-calls-for-police-reform-sparks-divisions-in-congress

No doubt the community lockdown probably did help fuel the riots significantly due to the restlessness that the lockdown caused. Contrary to popular sentiment that people are going to be staying at home due to the fear of Covid, I actually expected people to be going out in huge waves due to the restlessness; the police brutality case just added a crap ton of fuel to the fire.

The news you got is incorrect, not only that the officer Derek Chauvin who pinned Floyd down with his knee has been fired, also the other three officers on the scene, two of whom held him down have all been fired. While the main culprit has been charged for murder, the other officers await their charges, check this source: https://m.startribune.com/a-deeper-look-at-the-four-officers-fired-after-george-floyd-death/570885592/
Imo he did not mean to say Americans should do exactly this, since Floyd's death and protest is a 'hot' topic, he seized the opportunity to popularize bitcoin, cause it's impossible for citizens to do without (opt out of) the 'economy' which represents the national resources, markets, small and large businesses etc, without all this, we will just buy and hold bitcoins and have nothing to do with it.

Like I said on my previous reply, there definitely was a segue on his statement. But is it out of context? Not at all. While the additional bitcoin statement wasn't specifically about Floyd, it definitely compliments it. From George Floyd, to police brutality, to the protests/riots, to police reform, to the government, and to the economy in general.

Exiting the economy and going all-in on Bitcoin isn't only very risky but would be hard as hell. Probably harder than staying right now on fiat.

I'm all for BTC but imagine if you had $100k right now, bought BTC using it and price suddenly crashes to half. You'd lose $50k in the snap of a finger and if you depend on that money, there goes the "savior currency".

A big step taken by many by switching from fiat to crypto in one move could have disastrous effects on the current fiat system but it could also very well have a disastrous effect on Bitcoin itself. Think about those who've bought at $20k and are still waiting & hoping for a recovery.

And then, in my country for example there isn't much you can do with it besides selling it with a high fee to an ATM (and most of them have KYC too) or booking hotels and buying electronics. So my only option right now is to keep BTC as a long-term asset and that's basically it. Would switch from fiat in a second if I had the chance to and if I could live solely on Bitcoin, but unfortunately the reality says something different.

Bitcoin only exists on the internet. Thus, if there is no access to the Internet or there is no electricity on the entire planet, then all your funds in the form of cryptocurrency will be lost. In the modern world, with the Internet working, bitcoin is an excellent replacement for fiat, but also, in my opinion, it is always necessary to have alternative means of subsistence, which will always be of value to humans. For example: gold, silver, copper, etc. Thus, you will be protected from risks.