IMF gave them 1.4 billion to abandon the “experiment”:
> The IMF made this a condition for a loan of 1.4 billion US dollars (1.35 billion euros).
In December of last year, the IMF reached an agreement with President Nayib Bukele’s government on the loan of the stated amount to strengthen the country’s “fiscal sustainability” and mitigate the “risks associated with Bitcoin,” as it was described.
—-
I dislike cryptocurrencies as much as the next guy but this was clearly something else than a failure of the currency itself
If you need to go to the IMF for a loan of ~3% of your GDP to mitigate the risks associated with Bitcoin, well, that's a pretty good sign that adopting Bitcoin as legal tender was a pretty disastrous failure.
One of them being that El Salvador lost affordable access to the international bond market for a good part of the past years due to higher country investment risk, there were multiple reasons for that that are too long for one comment.
Some for the consequences have been:
The government switched to funding their bonds locally, including a good chunk of the local banks deposits which then the banks had to refinance to a longer longer term.
The government has been taking a good chunk of the pension funds with no interest paid back. Few details about this deal are available because the pension fund administrators and government supervisors have stopped publishing most of the financial reports for months.
because they started the experiment 20b in debt and have also managed to do a massive crime clean up + survive covid in that time. bitcoin is an overall benefit, but they are burdened but what has been
Lenders of money want to get their money back. They try to minimize the number of factors that threaten getting their money back. Those factors are called "risks".
El Salvador wants to borrow money. The IMF is willing to lend it, but sees El Salvador's Bitcoin policies as a risk to getting their money back.
From the IMF's perspective it is a risk to El Salvador's economy and therefore the repayment of the IMF's loan.
Your reply addresses nothing in my comment. The truth of the matter is that El Salvador reached out to the IMF for funding to address a number of issues listed in the announcement, and the adoption of Bitcoin as a national currency is one of many many topics covered by the deal. Spinning this as "the IMF paid off El Salvador to shut down Bitcoin" is, again, a take born out of functional illiteracy.
> If you need to go to the IMF for a loan of ~3% of your GDP to mitigate the risks associated with Bitcoin, well, that's a pretty good sign that adopting Bitcoin as legal tender was a pretty disastrous failure.
In addition, the whole country ditched Bitcoin as a payment system as soon as they cached out their sign on bonus. How is a national currency depicted as a success if no one uses it at all once they cached out the free money?
Crypto bros need to stop moving the goal posts they themselves plant arbitrarily and against any reason.
The target of the funds is not related to bitcoin.
"The program is anchored on improving the underlying primary balance by around 3½ percent of GDP over 3 years, to put the ratio of public debt to GDP on a firm downward path after peaking at 85 percent of GDP in 2024. High quality measures, worth 1½ percent of GDP in 2025, already included in the approved budget, will reduce the wage bill, spending on goods and services, and transfers to municipalities. To ensure fiscal sustainability and a further reduction in borrowing costs, reform efforts will center on strengthening the efficiency of the civil service, the viability of the pension system, and revenue mobilization. Fiscal consolidation will be conducted in a manner that strengthens support for the most vulnerable and protects priority public investment."
The assessment of their economy seems broadly positive
“The Salvadoran economy has steadily expanded since the pandemic, on the back of robust remittances and a remarkable pick-up in tourism, and amid an improved security situation, with climate shocks having only temporary negative effects. Meanwhile, the current account deficit has continued to narrow, and inflation has fallen further – supported also by lower global commodity prices. The fiscal situation continues to improve very gradually, and recent liability management operations have substantially lowered near-term financing needs, in the context of sharply lower sovereign spreads."
“Building on this progress, and recognizing El Salvador’s pending macroeconomic and structural challenges, the IMF-supported program aims to strengthen fiscal and external stability and help create the conditions for stronger and more inclusive growth."
>and so far I don't see any reason to believe it's true.
Yeah I guess bitcoin is only allowed to go UP everything negative is always false! There's no way that virtual beanie-babies couldn't overcome the evil IMF!
Exactly, too many people confuse investment (store of value) part of a currency with fungibility (medium of exchange) and debt (standard of deferred payment). Being good at one or even two of these things doesn't necessarily make it good at all three, good currencies balance all three to a greater or lesser degree.
> Exactly, too many people confuse investment (store of value) (...)
The "store of value" trait of money has nothing to do with the investment angle. It literally means value you store. It's the assurance that it retains it's value so to allow you to use it in the future to purchase something just like you could do today.
If the value of your coin only goes up in value, why would you use 1 bitcoin now to buy a pizza slice if you can use it 5-10 years from now to buy a house?
That's exactly the problem: People will (rationally!) limit their spending to bare necessities if they expect the currency they have on hand to strongly appreciate over time.
Imagine that, having the option of saving your money for things you really want instead of being forced to spend it on things you don't, or risk lending it out for essentially free to compensate for the continuous fall in value.
There are other ways to encourage spending though, like a wealth tax. Not that I necessarily support it, but that would be the more comprehensive solution to hoarding, since it couldn't be worked around by just exchanging fiat for other assets like gold.
Sure, my point was that there are many reasons someone might spend money today that might be better off saved for the future, however much it may increase in value.
I think crypto proponents in general share this inability to understand the fact that one of the most basic traits of money is stability of it's value, and anything that fails to meet this basic requirement is simply useless as a currency.
Bitcoiners understand it well. They realise that in order to stabilise in value and become a unit of account, it has to grow close to it's ultimate potential as a store of value first. Which in the case of bitcoin is potentially well over $100T market cap.
This is why El Salvador is likely willing to back down in the currency aspect for now and focus onto accumulating and holding bitcoin reserves.
deflation is fine for an economy. inflation is disastrous for an economy. the people in charge of the money printers are trying to keep you confused. don’t buy it.
Not arguing too hard but people do have to spend some money to live regardless… it could be said people are less careful with their money when they feel like it’s losing value, so they spend more and save less. Yes it results in more spending but on what?
I'm not trying to strawman the opposing side, but I always found it ironic that many of the cryptocurrency proponents I talk to think that starting a business is amazing and innovation is important, but also hate inflation, which encourages those two things.
> Not arguing too hard but people do have to spend some money to live regardless…
This isn't about a decision to buy bread and milk for your breakfast. It's about the decision on whether you invest in a grocery store vs let your money sit in a bank. If doing nothing is more profitable than doing something then society as a whole will gravitate towards generating no economic activity. This has disastrous consequences because the majority of people in a society do not have the luxury of having investments to live off their dividends.
> If doing nothing is more profitable than doing something then society as a whole will gravitate towards generating no economic activity.
You're operating off a false premise. Do you think all economic activity would be less profitable than the interest rate offered by deflation?
The whole point of investing in any business is to make a return. Giving businesses competition in the form of deflationary currencies will not eradicate businesses from being formed, and there's no evidence to suggest these businesses will be less profitable than holding a deflationary currency.
We see this in various cryptocurrencies claiming to be deflationary with the concept of 'yield', which shows investing to be a function of their wealth, interest, and expectation of return. Inflation does not need to be in the equation for this type of development.
That 'LOL' comes across as very arrogant for someone who seems to have a tentative grasp at best on what they're commenting on. We have already experienced stagflation which runs counter to a lot of Keynesian ideas about inflation. It turns out it doesn't always encourage spending and employment. Similarly there is no evidence deflation will lead to stagnation of productivity[1]. People will always want to spend more than is needed for survival and doing so in a deflationary environment makes people think harder on how money is spent.
computers have experienced rapid deflation in the previous decades. did that prevent people from buying computers? no, obviously not.
of course you are just trolling ("LOL") and you are incurious to any evidence or argument that contradicts your straight-from-cable-news talking points.
This isn't quite the same. Money that is deflating becomes literally more functionally useful the longer you hold it. Computers stay as functionally useful as you hold them and arguably degrade relative to the software you need to run on them. In your analogy you should be concerned with whether I want to sell my computer (analogous to spending my money). If a computer truly did become more functional with passing time then no, nobody would sell them unless they had to - illustrating the problem.
you're technically correct, yes it isn't exactly the same. good job! for an example that is exactly the same, look at the general monetary deflation in the united states during the majority of the 19th century. I know most people won't, so I used a similar example that everyone is familiar with.
Their argument isn't that it's not "exactly the same" (they were being polite), it's that it's functionally the opposite. And when you imagine a variation in which it's functionally the same, your argument clearly falls apart.
As far as deflation in the 1800s, are you referring to in 1818 after a credit collapse cratered England's economy and then spread to the US and put it into a recession; or maybe the Panic of 1837 which triggered a depression until the mid 1840s?; or do you mean the Panic of 1873 which triggered the Long Depression that lasted until 1899?
Which one of those are good examples we should look to?
The glorious periods of deflation that you're glamorizing are referred to in the historical record as panics and depressions. Because they were very unenjoyable.
It's of course not that bankers put this spin on it to give them an excuse to continuously print money (all the money in fact) out of thin air and charge interest on it.
Remind me, why is the target inflation rate 2-3% again? It couldn't be that it's the amount of money creation they can get away with without devaluing the currency so much that it destabilises into hyperinflation could it?
I'm just having fun - I'm sure I'm completely wrong
> Remind me, why is the target inflation rate 2-3% again?
Because empirically it seems to yield a pretty sustainable mixture of consumption, investment, and savings, while also not risking a wage-price spiral.
You tell me what the target inflation rate should be and point to some moments in history informing that target so I can go read about them.
It should be a negative, just as the value of consumables are over time. But that's not possible in a system heavily indebted and addicted to interest rates under the free market rate (only possible because banks create money effortlessly and hold it artificially low to enable a monopoly on "debt").
Such a policy would quickly collapse the current system as the value of the debt would increase over time instead of decrease, and so instead the banks inflate the value of the currency down to 0 which takes more time for the system to collapse (which fiat currencies always do and always will).
Starting again with a hard money, we would thrive, instead of being enslaved by a system that continuously stealthily, steals the value out of the fruits of our labour (at a rate of ~7% year) and gives it to the bankers and those closest to them.
Who cares? The "economy" is just people buying and selling things. If they choose not to and save instead, that's great. It's called freedom.
It's like saying - "if we have some money that keeps going up in value, we won't need to work anymore and unemployment figures will go up - that's terrible - we must not allow it to happen!"
Right, you'll spend the absolute bare minimum and proactively invest approximately never.
This is bad.
In fact, you'll only ever invest in highly speculative investments because they're the only things that might possibly justify the opportunity cost of your currency just accruing value.
By people in change of money printer, did you mean Giancarlo Devacini, who has printed hundred billion funny tokens in some non-extradition offshore with zero audit, and used those funny tokens to buy other tokens like BTC, ETH and others? Those people? Or he is fine, because you are directly benefiting from that token printer and doesn't care about others being swindled in the process?
Yeah, i really dislike bitcoin, but have to admit, it has been a very profitable investment for a lot of people (and still hasn't completely crashed like expected)...
... although as a form of currency (as opposed to an investment) for El Salvador, it looks like it's a failure
The risk that IMF would be concerned about is that the value of their holdings could go to 0 overnight by a wallet hack, data loss, an unscrupulous government employee, or the world running out of greater fools.
Yeah, that's my theory too on one reason it hasn't fully crashed (meaning "the world running out of greater fools"). Unlike tulip bulbs or the dot.com crash, bitcoin is a world-wide phenomenon so there is large supply of bitcoin buyers. Yeah, even the dot.com crash was done in the highly regulated US stock market.
Also thinking, since it's extremely difficult to regulate, was wondering if some very clever people with huge holdings have formed a cartel and are doing a lot of price manipulation to prevent it from fully collapsing (maybe even during a rise in price, causing it to drop early to prevent a major run up). But that's just a theory.
That is not a currency in the same manner that gold isn't a currency or barrels of oil isn't either. Or in other words, you don't use for buying a coffee or grocery.
Sure that you can always point some exotic and rare exceptions to prove differently but even yourself don't use it on normal daily financial operations, and no, Lightning isn't even bitcoin so please don't argue with that.
There are more things backing up the value rise for that old tech. Just please diversify into other areas so you don't come out empty handed in some years from now.
>I dont know what the future hodls but it’s looking pretty good for bitcoin so far
The future always looks good right before a crash. You really don't want a currency as unstable as bitcoin as your legal ledger. we would have had 2 crashes already in this decade alone: the obvious 2020 dip and the dip in 2023.
All the DOGE/Trump shennaigans + the investigation on the Hawk Tuah coin will probably crash it again late this year.
I don't think DOGE/Trump are real bitcoin advocates. I think they're using it as a financial weapon to exploit its vulnerability to crash and break things they don't want to exist.
>President Nayib Bukele’s government has accumulated 5,900 BTC, achieving profits of $333.59 million from an initial $269.74 million investment, fuelled by Bitcoin’s recent surge past $100,000. (dec 2024)
If the only thing it can accomplish is being traded back and forth for "hard" currencies such as the US Dollar than it's no more useful than the Soviet Ruble.
It's not even useful as an actual anonymous currency, it's not even anonymous without a considerable amount of legwork.
If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, I would consider that behaviour a massive success without much further thought. It isn't a huge amount of money at the scale of a national economy but >$1 billion for nothing is a win.
Although of course it is unknowable how much of that money was bribe and how much El Salvador would have gotten without additional leverage.
> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour
I think you need to refresh your understanding of the difference between a loan and a gift; it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior.
There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find.
The IMF are an arm of the US "diplomatic" apparatus. The charitable interpretation of how they operate looks like this:
1) A country is doing something the US doesn't like.
2) The country is in some trouble of their own making.
3) The IMF will come and bail them out if they would be inclined to start doing the things the US likes instead of the things it doesn't like.
The uncharitable interpretation of "2)" is "the country is doing alright so the US overtly or covertly causes problems for them so they become in trouble".
Basically, the IMF money is the carrot you get for bending the knee. The stick can be the CIA or other things.
So your claim is that US administration through the IMF is forcing El Salvador to drop Bitcoin as a national currency. The same US administration that proposed creating a "national digital asset stockpile"??!? (per https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-... )
The IMF isn't run by the US any more than it is run by Russia or any of the other major members (those that have their own executive-director rather than being in a group that together shares one.)
And, regardless, "you do this, we do that" in no way unusual for the US's foreign policy. Eg, the US military insists on democracy onshore and is mildly opposed to democracy in the middle east. Neutral at best. Any democracy they like in the ME as long as it never votes for any policy that inconveniences the nearest US general.
> There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find.
I think you need to take a pause and read what you wrote because there's some serious cognitive dissonance in your claims.
The IMF is a fund put together and ran by the majority of countries in the world as a lender of last resort. It serves as the world's insurance policy on stability. So when a country like El Salvador knocks on their doors, it's a kin to stating the world they are in trouble and they desperately need a hand. The IMF then provides help, but requires as a tradeoff that the country cleans up their act and actually corrects it's course as to mitigate or eliminate the root causes of their instability. For example, countries that are hugely indebted have to comply with demands to lower their sovereign debt down to manageable levels.
Looking at El Salvador, their populist and ill-advised policy to adopt Bitcoin as a currency was a fantastic failure with a tradeoff of being a huge risk factor. Even the most firebrand crypto bro is forced to acknowledge that crypto currencies like Bitcoin have a number of traits that renders them unusable as money, among which the most popular one is the core reason driving it's popularity: volatility. It's to no surprise that one of the basic requirements for stability is to not use a highly volatile and uncontrollable asset as the nation's currency.
>_> Cheeky FYI, but cognitive dissonance is the "mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory" [0]. While I'm certainly not above that, in this case I don't think I even made and defended enough claims here for them to be contradictory in principle and you don't seem to be arguing that. Consider going with the more straightforward "I disagree!" or "That isn't correct!".
It is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. For example, you are somehow trying to hold contradictory claims on how Bitcoin's clear failure as a currency is somehow a sign of it's success.
The mental disturbance angle is also compounded by the far-fetched conspiracy theories on how El Salvador ditched Bitcoin because "the man" wants to kill it.
> Even the most firebrand crypto bro is forced to acknowledge that crypto currencies like Bitcoin have a number of traits that renders them unusable as money, among which the most popular one is the core reason driving it's popularity: volatility.
This is essentially the other way around. It's volatile if it's predominantly used for speculation rather than as a currency, because "widespread use as a currency" is a big value sink that absorbs volatility. In other words, if more or larger countries used it as a currency it would be less volatile.
That it's predominantly used for speculation is the reason it has had high volatility, which is the point. Increased use as a currency would cause the volatility to decline, because when the majority of the value is held by a hundred million people each holding three-digit numbers of dollars worth, they don't try to predict the market and dump their holding of pocket money. So volatility not only doesn't preclude use as a currency, wider use as a currency solves the volatility.
There is also a pretty obvious way to avoid the volatility in the interim when using it as a currency: Don't use it to specify prices and don't hoard large quantities of it. If you have a Bitcoin wallet with the equivalent of $100 in it, it doesn't matter that much if it goes down to $50 and then up to $150 and then back to $100 again over the course of a year, because +/- $50/year is not a big deal. Meanwhile we have computers now, so prices can be listed in US dollars or any other currency and then use the live exchange rate when paying in cryptocurrency, while still accepting it widely.
And "it has no other purpose" is a weird claim. It has an obvious purpose: It allows you to exchange value without permission or identity. The "it's a public ledger so there's no privacy" claim is silly; your wallet address is public but you can have arbitrarily many of them, there is nothing inherently tying them to your identity, and there are known implementations (e.g. Monero) that provide even stronger privacy. These are things the existing banking system doesn't provide, and from the perspective of countries that actually respect the privacy of their citizens (or any citizens who want their privacy protected), are features.
> Why are you guys saying adopting Bitcoin was a failure?
Because it was a failure in each and every single thing it was claimed it would achieve, specially the fact that everyone in El Salvador ditched the system once they cached out their sign on bonus.
The thing they have in exchange is millions of citizens that the entire globe doesn’t want to see starve to death and the US in particular doesn’t want to deal with mass amounts of illegal migrants when their economy collapses.
US Leadership is focused on getting us to Mars, all of that takes long-term planning. Sure, a few of us will die in the process, but come on, a flag on Mars! There is a Planet B!
> it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior.
You are both incorrect in different ways. Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador was not a well-adopted initiative and thus they were okay with axing it. The loan was not to deal with the problems of their behavior, but to push more important things in El Salvador's agenda.
> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, (...)
I think you need to check up with reality because your scenario has nothing to do with the one reported in the article. If you read the report, you'll understand thay El Salvador reached out to the IMF, a lender of last resort, asking for funding to finance their reform agenda. Among the long list of requirements designed to improve financial health, Bitcoin ceases to be an official currency.
It’s being “used” as a speculative asset. That’s not a firm foundation to run a governmental monetary system on. Maybe there are other cryptocurrencies better suited to the task, but BTC isn’t
I'm fine with letting decentralized currency maturing for say, 300 years, in some small corner of the world, before letting it loose on the rest of us.
They're founded on the shared illusion that the money they create is worth something, and the fact that this works pretty well is arguably one of the most important achievements of human civilization.
Risks vary based on the mitigation strategy and the time available for preparation. Only S&P can distantly resemble the volatility of a pure speculative asset which depends on psychology and the amount of extra money in the markets. But even S&P depends on a lot of factors which don't trigger overnight for a knowledgeable investor. It's a snowball but not an avalanche.
BTC has shown itself magically profitable indeed, but its value could only be kept by the ability of holders to keep the asset. Most marriages and some jobs will endure even in the toughest times.
Spouse is an idea in your head though. Very hard to measure. Because she used not to be a spouse before getting married right. One day she became spouse. So it's an idea. Not tangible.
Yeah, that’s true. We invest in a lot of things, hoping for future value. But I guess I still treat those differently. I only hold enough USD for upcoming purchases. And I struggle to understand how investing in my marriage is speculative. For a variety of reasons I can’t (or wouldn’t want to) manage that risk like I would in normal speculative investment. I can’t hedge, size up, size down.
So I think I’m missing something. I feel like you’re suggesting that we should be more comfortable speculating because we do it all the time, but I’m not seeing how those are all the same.
I think that's right. At some level, any anticipation of a future state has to be measurable in some kind of confidence level.
I suppose where I get lost is that, at least subjectively, I end up treating different anticipated return distributions differently. I want a mixture of risks, both in terms of their covariance and the absolute properties.
When I think of "speculation", I am intentionally shaping only a small portion of my personal portfolio toward high risk, high reward activities. And I only really feel comfortable doing that because a larger fraction of my personal risk is in safer vehicles.
Atop that, I also think a lot about liquidity time bounds. I want access to a reasonable amount of highly-liquid, low-risk investments. I need that flexibility to be safe in the event that I need to buy something.
To my eye at least, I qualitatively differentiate between speculative investments and these liquid/low risk ones. If I felt I only had one kind of risk, I would seek out the other in some proportion.
Are you able to point to a single case where Bitcoin was used as legal tender in an every day business transaction? By this I mean, can you give an example where someone ordered a cup of coffee with Bitcoin directly and not through a proxy?
Food, medicine, transportation, education, and everything else at or near the bottom of Maslow's pyramid of needs still cannot be directly purchased with bitcoin.
The other punchline to the Bitcoin joke is that it's finite. In 120 years it will begin to evaporate from existence as more and more wallets are simply lost to time.
It is highly divisible though, there’s 2.1e15 satoshi and 2.3e14 cents in the world (re google). It can lose 90% of itself before being unable to replace cents. Also, the network can just agree to change the protocol to fix this issue, should it arise. Countries do redenominations all the time.
What it really is is basically a consensus between participants. Once the consensus about a change gains critical mass, that change just happens, by someone coding it into the software and people updating to it. The change (fork) becomes mainstream and the old version becomes fringe. And vice versa, if consensus never achieved. There will be people who stay on old version anyway. It’s up to who believes in what, based on available software based on ideas that are worth new code.
How can anything ever be changed once 51% is abandoned?
I also think there will be a gold rush of hacking old wallets one day when the encryption is broken. Not sure if that will happen before or after btc failure though. You can’t upgrade security on lost wallets.
I think you're confusing proof of work with proof of stake. The integrity of the Bitcoin network is enforced by the miners agreeing on the rules, not by anyone staking their ownership for governance.
That would be terrible for the economy and everyone not sitting on piles of bitcoin.
It’s hard to imagine a financial instrument that’s less suited to be used as an actual currency than bitcoin. Even going back to the gold standard would be a better idea.
I mean, what I'm about is really the same, just the other way round. Countries usually erase zeroes after hyperinflation adds them, cryptocoins can just add extra zeroes due to deflation. No change in value, just higher granularity.
The rest left me puzzled, can you elaborate? Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto?
> Why should the money holder do anything productive? Why getting richer and richer becomes something bad when we go crypto?
This question works better the other way round. Why should people that do all the work and take all the investment risks to make the riches get continually decreasing returns on their efforts whilst the people that sit and HODL get continually increasing returns on doing nothing?
Because people are willing to pay more. Why should I make money because my house is worth more than it was? Because people are willing to pay more. There's no more "should" required than that.
Um... if the only legal tender around was an asset with fixed supply, people holding it wouldn't be willing to pay more, (or invest it in making more stuff) that's the whole point.
But you see my point, right? I'm challenging the question of "why should someone buy that thing for more than the seller paid for it?" The answer is: because the new buyer is willing to pay that for it.
Because starting a business might still lead to higher returns for you than hoping that your money will be worth more.
One thing i’ve always wondered: If something like Bitcoin was the only currency, then it would be like a direct mapping of 21 Million Bitcoin <-> all global economic activity and goods and services. In that case, shouldn’t its price be relatively stable, and might actually even go down sometimes? Like in big natural disasters increasing the cost of certain goods?
I’m not a crypto zealot, but I’m not a big believer in the idea that the economy needs to be stimulated and I need to be forced to spend my money before it loses its value. I just want to buy what I need or really want.
And in the hypothetical case of having a mapping of “all economic activity” <-> “21M payment units”, then the relative stability of this money might still make investments more lucrative than just hoping for my money to be worth slightly more tomorrow. In this hypothetical scenario it would be more like “my money is worth 1000 eggs today, next month it might be 1001 (if others grow the economy) or 999 (if something unforeseen happens halfway across the globe). So if an investment looks like it might yield the value of 1100 eggs there would still be people to take the risk of investing, no?
Any type of economic activity in USD involves paying rent or huge surplus to those who hoarded real estate (which doesn’t go away any soon). I don’t see the big difference here. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, but let’s at least apply the arguments symmetrically.
Why would someone invest into or try to start a business when you can become richer by just sitting on your _property_ pile with no risk.
Well that implies that you are more or less economically illiterate. I’m not talking about property and even renting residential/commercial property (as relatively safe as it is) does provide an actual service.
Anyway.. a very basic example, imagine you have $1000000, you can:
- keep it under your bed and lose 2% every year
- invest it into real estate etc. and make e.g. 4% every year.
- invest into the stock market and make 6%.
Now with a deflationary currency like bitcoin (or gold back in the mid to late 1800s) you can just hoard it and conservatively make 2-3% every year* invest into safe bonds and gain another 3-4%. Business would need to grow at an extremely fast pace to be able to attract much capital in such an environment.
* of course it’s only hypothetical. You’d need the economy to grow and productivity to increase YoY for this. That would be unlikely in any economy that used Bitcoin as its primary currency.
>The other punchline to the Gold joke is that it's finite. In 120 years it will begin to evaporate from existence as more and more gold chests are simply lost to time.
That's because it's actually quite sane; relying on commodity backed currencies - especially those which are _finite_ leads to deflation. You see that with BTC, where the value keeps rising and you need more and more fractional denominations to make sense. With gold (and historically, more so silver), it was _very rarely_ used for actual trade because it ended up being like five gold coins == someone's entire life savings. It was always silver, copper and unit of account.
Debased currency - a problem every large state eventually faced - is a consequence of deflation.
>Debased currency - a problem every large state eventually faced - is a consequence of deflation
Inflation in the monetary supply, not deflation, leads to the debasement of a currency. An example is how the influx of gold from the conquistadors into 16th century Spain led to inflation, due to the increased supply of this means of exchange resulting in the debasement in value of a given unit of this means of exchange.
Edit: I'd remembered wrong. It was silver, not gold, that Spain experienced an influx of.
> Inflation, not deflation, leads to the debasement of a currency. An example is how the influx of gold from the conquistadors into 16th century Spain led to inflation, due to the increased supply of this means of exchange resulting in the debasement in value of a given unit of this means of exchange.
No, that's not debasement - in fact it was the opposite, the huge supply of silver (not so much gold) meant those Spanish coins were good-quality bullion. Inflation happened, and while that can commonly be caused by debasement, that wasn't the cause in this instance.
I was more thinking in terms of the modern conception of currency debasement resulting from the increase in the monetary supply, though I think I must have just been thinking of the real, not the escudo. Several years ago, I read a couple of books on the conquistadors, where the details of the devaluation of silver was discussed, but it's been a while since the information was fresh in my mind.
Interesting take. Therefore they needed a bridge between the deflationary BTC and a low-inflationary day-to-day note. Is there an obvious fix, my liege?
I used to pay my dish network bill with it before they stopped accepting it. I've also used it to send money to friends and family, and to donate to open source projects and other things.
If the fees were lower I'd use it for plenty of other things too.
With all due respect, why not Bitcoin Cash or some other coin? Bitcoin Cash is the exact same thing as Bitcoin - same protocol, same 21 million coin limit, same Satoshi whitepaper, same everything, except bigger blocks and thus, much lower fees. If you are using a coin as an actual currency, and not as a speculator, why stick with high-fee Bitcoin?
Took a lot of scrolling to find a mention of Bitcoin Cash.
I used to believe in Bitcoin in the beginning, but the high fees make it impractical to use as everyday currency.
Bitcoin Cash is much closer to what I had hoped Bitcoin would become. It’s the same as Bitcoin, except that it ideologically split exactly for the reason that some people wanted it to behave more like an actual currency, while others invented the “digital gold” narrative.
Gresham's law says that "bad money drives out good". Due to the dynamic this describes, it is unlikely bitcoin would commonly be used to buy and sell things even if it did not suffer practical obstacles.
Bitcoin experiences less inflation than regular currencies. Some coins get created now, but over time we know its character will become deflationary: no new coins will be created, and some will be lost at times due to poor wallet management.
As a result, people will chose to spend other currency in preference to spending bitcoin. This is self-reinforcing. The infrastructure will not be in place to use it on the odd occasion that someone wanted to.
You could create a blockchain currency which had a natural and continuous rate of inflation, to encourage people to spend it. You could bootstrap this by mutualising it across an industry. e.g. imagine if the largest datacentre groups got together to create ModestlyInflationaryCoin, and then said they would offer discounts to customers who paid in ModestlyInflationaryCoin, as a means of bootstrapping it. Other groups might start to use it, and it would stay in circulation because people would want to be rid of it once they had it.
Even if such a currency existed, it would probably be short-lived. /Once it was bootstrapped/, its stakeholders would have strong incentive to change its contract to be non-inflationary. Making that change would convert their holdings from Bad Money to Good Money, and as a result the character it would significantly increase its value.
But the datacentre groups could then mutualise a new currency in place of the old one. It is possible that there is a virtuous loop here, and that there will be a race to quality in currencies in our future, grown from how easy it is to create new currencies. We might start to see the identity of currencies a bit more like the way we see futures contracts in our current era.
Society needs at least some inflation for things to keep moving, but an individual usually wants the opposite.
The elected government serves the society of its citizens, while inventors and holders of unofficial currencies are individuals who ultimately serve only themselves.
There is a legitimate role for both things: to have some non-inflationary things that serve as a store-of-value, and then some inflationary things to serve as regular currency.
It is worth emphasising here: non-inflationary currency does not grow its value, so it would be unusual for people to want to put their wealth exclusively into store-of-value. Rather, most people will want a mix of inflationary-currency, store-of-value, and investment in growth-generating businesses.
When people talk about wanting to use bitcoin as a day-to-day currency, I feel like they are missing the best benefit if could offer us.
We already have effective day-to-day currencies. But we have not had a reliable store of value. The US, UK and Australia each have a history of denying ownership of gold when it suits them, which is when people need it most.
The lack of reliable store-of-wealth has made it too-easy for governments to fleece wealth-generating people in order to buy votes. This is not the long-term strategic path, but it creates a race-to-the-bottom due to short-term incentives. Perhaps blockchain will change that, by allowing the creation of an easily accessed utility that sits beyond the easy influence of the nation state.
To be effective it does not need to be perfect, just better than the options we have now. It has been encouraging to me to see the CCP struggling with blockchain, and then outlawing it because they cannot control it.
An argument can be made that if there is a 100% reliable, maybe even deflationary, store of value, it would have a similar effect to currency deflation: since it is worth more tomorrow, then you are disincentivized to spend your wealth, and not spending wealth (not investing it in some value-producing enterprises, buying things and services) seems like a recipe for stagnation and wealth gap increase.
Is it even possible with BTC? I mean, how long does the transaction take to completely confirm? 30 mins? I guess if you paid way in advance; or loaded up a prepaid wallet.
If bitcoin utility is storing value outside of tax jurisdiction and moving it without obstruction, globally – then the question is Why should that even matter? Former is every rich person's dream, and latter enables a lot of things, good or bad.
A counter-example: can you come up to a coffee shop with a gold collectible coin, chew a piece out, and use it to pay for your coffee directly? You need a proxy in form of a pawn shop for that.
Instruments are instruments, if it is not used for every day business transactions doesn't mean it is not heavily ab-used inside it's niche
There have been stores which accepted bitcoin as payment. Webhallen.com is an electronics store in Sweden which at least used to accept bitcoin (not sure if they still do).
As a general rule it's not very convenient to do so though since the value can fluctuate. (Which naturally all currencies do, but it would be kind of like paying with USD in the EU. You could do that, but most stores are not interested in the extra hassle of keeping track of multiple currencies.)
It is also not uncommon for services like VPN or IPTV streaming ("pirate streaming") providers to accept crypto.
The post you're replying to is about Bitcoin being "used", not specifically "used for everyday transactions". Bitcoin has so far been a decent asset to hold as a store of value if you don't want to or can't store your money in the traditional financial system. Lots of everyday people in countries with high inflation or strict controls or how people can store money hold Bitcoin (or perhaps more commonly, stablecoins) for a very practical purpose other than speculation.
Bitcoin has only failed so far as a replacement for Visa and Mastercard. So no, nobody's using it to buy coffee.
>Bitcoin has only failed so far as a replacement for Visa and Mastercard. So no, nobody's using it to buy coffee.
It not being "used" in this context is referring to it not being used as legal tender. The law that was walked back was one which had made bitcoin legal tender throughout the country. As others have mentioned, it seems to have largely failed in being adopted as such, as surveys seem to indicate that less than 10% of people
in the country had used it as legal tender in the previous year.
Trying to use bitcoin like this is like trying to use certificates of deposit to buy coffee. Bitcoin is a store of value, it’s nonsense to try and use it like this. Look at Ethereum if you want a medium of exchange fit for the digital age.
It can work as a day-to-day currency, but it compromises the decentralization that is key to Bitcoin's usefulness as a store of value:
+ By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast.
+ Because BCH uses the same hash algo as Bitcoin, but is much less popular, it's at risk of 51% attack.
+ Because there is no pressure on block sizes, fees are very low, which means that as halvings continue the block rewards for BCH will get extremely small. This will result in hashrate continuing to decrease, putting it at even greater risk of 51% attacks. Bitcoin's high fees allow it to remain profitable for miners even without inflation. Miners have to be paid to keep the network secure, and that's either going to come from tx fees or from inflation. BCH aims to have neither and that puts it at risk.
And anyway, there are much better solutions for day to day payments, such as Monero and Ethereum.
> By allowing 8x larger blocks (unless it's even larger now?), if in widespread use with full blocks, the blockchain would be 8x larger. Bitcoin's blockchain is already the better part of 1TB, though you can still fit that on a cheap SSD. Imagine if it were 8 and growing fast.
This has always felt like a completely weaksauce argument to me. Even with Bitcoin, very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain (like it or not). 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop, but 8TB is at most a minor inconvenience on a server or dedicated mining rig. What's the demographic where a measly factor of 8 makes a difference?
> very few people other than dedicated miners download a full blockchain
I'm gonna have to ask for evidence on this one, I strongly believe most full nodes are not mining pools. http://bitdash.io/ says there are ~10,000 running full nodes, yet there are only ~100 mining pools that have produced a block in recent history: https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin
> 1TB is already too large to keep on your phone or laptop
On your phone, sure. But my desktop already has a few TB of storage. But not 8. And Bitcoin Cash supporters usually seem to indicate that they'd increase it beyond 8 if the 8mb blocks filled up.
Every Bitcoin Cash transaction is on the chain itself. Bitcoin is increasingly reliant on off-chain "Lightning" transactions. An extra few TB of data or majority of transactions not on the chain at all? I'll go with more data & transparency, thank you.
it is probably the same with gold - in fact, i say gold is used even less in transactions. Yet, nobody would deny that gold cannot form a good monetary foundation . Of course, it's not the best - fiat is still, imho, better - but it doesn't mean it can't work.
So why is the IMF so against bitcoins that they'd rather pay to eliminate it? Or are the IMF scared that bitcoin can actually succeed, in a way which prevents IMF members from asserting monetary pressure in ways that benefits them?
Ahh yes, the age old “let’s use a precious metal to denominate our currency” idea.
Cryptocurrency bros are literally speedrunning the entirety of monetary system failures. All of them. You’d think, maybe after the first couple they’d read a book or something?
And it was $92k just less than 24 hours ago. That’s why it’s bad for currencies because people can’t make meaningful plans more than a few hours out, and it’s terrible for the economy if you incentivize everyone to reduce spending in the hopes that speculators will make you rich later.
Real currencies circulate so the same dollar is spent by many people, benefiting each of them while you’re still holding onto your Bitcoin hoping it’ll reach $110k next. You do not want to live in a country where people are staying out of the local economy.
I dare you to come up with a single example of someone that has a billion dollars in liquid assets. They probably don't exist: "billionaries" are worth billions on paper, thanks to stocks, investments, real estate holdings, etc.
All in all, billionaires are a bad example of holding legal tender, because that just doesn't happen.
Warren Buffett. Berkshire Hathaway has over $300B in cash reserves, Buffett owns 15% of Berkshire and directs investments — he chose to park all that value in cash reserves, roughly $50B of that is his share.
> While Buffett has stated that Berkshire Hathaway will maintain a permanent cash reserve of about $30 billion to fund potential insurance payouts, Bloomstran takes a more conservative approach and adds about $50 billion to that reserve level to account for a full year's worth of potential insurance losses.
There is additional context there explaining why Berkshire holding cash reserves is unique to their needs, and historically has only represented 17.5% of their total assets.
Billionaires and large firms are not sitting on piles of cash Scrooge McDuck style, because holding cash is costly.
No it's that billionaires mostly aren't worth their estimated net worth in actual cash.
If Elon Musk wanted to turn his Tesla holdings into cash, then his estimated net worth of $436 billion dollars would very rapidly not be worth anywhere near that much (i.e. probably by at least an order of magnitude).
Are you claiming TSLA is fundamentally worth less than $43.6B, and the mere fact that Elon owns 23% of TSLA shares is worth four hundred billion dollars?
I know that selling 23% of a company in one go would move the market, but a 90% haircut would be bonkers.
Or are you claiming TSLA is special, and the haircut would be 90% just for Elon and just for TSLA because that particular stock is super overvalued due to his celebrity and reality distortion field? That seems a little more believable, but this was a discussion on net worth of generic billionaires to start.
Why not work to become a billionaire, then donate your wealth? Or begin donating your earnings today? I would guess most people on Hacker News are in the upper decile of wealth globally — there are still billions of people living poverty. Feels like a fairer way to help people than trying to do it with other people’s wealth — the latter feels like hypocrisy.
Nobody in history has ever worked hard enough to earn a billion dollars fairly.
It's crazy to me that you'd defend these people who have corrupted and degraded the entire system - the government, the finance sector, the media - to only favor holding everyone else to ransom. Not producing but holding. Societal wealth stolen without paying tax to benefit society. People didn't choose this.
I'm not starving, sure. And I'd be absolutely fine paying significantly more tax than I am now.
But I'm not about to voluntarily donate while I am still forced to work towards retirement, and there are people controlling literally 10,000 times more assets than I am that pay zero tax.
Do you not see the inevitable outcome of that?
You and your children, and their children, will own nothing because the super-rich will outbid you and everyone else for everything.
> Billionaires stole the profits of our work from us
This seems like a very skewed perspective. You work for a salary, I imagine, and you freely agreed to take that job and in return get a salary, even if the company was losing money or its share price was plummeting. I.e. taking a salary because of the security of payments.
Lots of people who invest in businesses lose all their money. You can't point at the very very peak performers who a) didn't lose their money and b) made a really valuable company instead, and decide that they owe you something other than what you agreed you would work for. That's just not how agreements work, and it's also the apex fallacy[0].
But there still needs to be some mechanism to limit wealth inequality or we still get the inevitable conclusion.
The US minimum wage hasn't changed in 16 years!
Which means many of these peak performers are built on the back of poverty, people who don't have the luxury of "freely agreeing" to take their labor elsewhere.
It's just not fair at all. Governments are funneling money to the rich hand over fist. It's obvious who they represent and who they don't.
You have to agree that trickle down is not trickling down.
I don't mind this, because minimum wage is a national minimum. States (and even more fine-grained than that) need to have contextualised minimum wage, or it's just silly. That's why it hasn't changed. Minimum wage increases wages at the expense of reducing employment, for any job that isn't worth that wage. You can't increase the national US minimum wage to what would get you an apartment in California and expect jobs to exist in Appalachia.
Honestly, the national minimum wage seems almost pointless. States should handle it, as they can contextualise at least a bit better.
And it not changing isn't evidence of anything when state-level minimum wages exist.
> Which means many of these peak performers are built on the back of poverty, people who don't have the luxury of "freely agreeing" to take their labor elsewhere.
Thus I don't think it means that. And also - your false dichotomy of you're either a wealthy business owner or you're on national minimum wage is not helpful either. People are paid what they can negotiate. Companies pay what they can negotiate. Companies exist if they charge a low enough price for their level of service or product. It's a tri-party system. The existence of other companies in in-demand businesses is what drives up wages, as if you don't like your job you can move, and people do. That's why I would say where possible, things that stop new companies springing up should be removed. Thinking it's all about national minimum wage is honestly the wrong approach, in my opinion.
> You have to agree that trickle down is not trickling down.
I don't know what this means. I didn't mention anything trickling down.
re: the minimum wage. I'm in Australia, not the US, but is there any place in the US where a fulltime worker on minimum wage is paid enough to have a reasonable life, let's say a 2 bedroom home with two children, without struggling?
I was not implying that "you're either a wealthy business owner or you're on national minimum wage". You can safely substitute a "middle class" person, or even a "rich, but not super-rich" person, for "on national minimum wage", because in a few years I believe the middle class will completely cease to exist.
This is already happening and is actually the inevitable conclusion of all the funneling of money towards the super-rich and the subsequent increase in wealth inequality.
I wasn't even actually talking about business owners, but the super-rich that those business owners borrow money and pay interest to.
That's the trickling down I'm talking about, which you didn't mention because it appears you don't think that som trickling down is even necessary.
Some trickle down or other mechanism to limit the rich from owning everything is necessary if that inevitable outcome of a tiny group of people owning absolutely everything is to be avoided.
Do you disagree with that?
I believe you're alluding to some kind of nearly perfect system where large businesses have not created artificial regulatory and other moats to protect their business and hamstring competitors.
eg, imagine a large factory that employs most of the people in an area. Potential workers for that factory do not have the ability to negotiate a fair wage, and also don't have the mobility to uproot their entire life to move somewhere else. Also another company cannot reasonably expect to move in and out-compete for the workers in that area. Thus the fictional factory is in a massively favorable position to "negotiate" wages for its workers.
I think we have largely differing views on the fundamental fairness of a system where low-paid workers are expected to negotiate with multinational corporations that already have all the advantages in any negotiation.
Those corporations are also able to monetize the profits from those workers productivity to actively lobby governments for even more favorable conditions in those "negotiations".
I believe it is a very unfair system.
I doubt we will end up finding a middle ground here if you do not think a system where the super-rich are not limited in some way from accumulating wealth is unfair.
> a single example of someone that has a billion dollars in liquid assets
Lots of billionaires manage their portfolios conservatively. Your equating currency with liquid assets is unnecessary and tanks your argument. Almost nobody holds billions of dollars in legal tender other than those who have to, e.g. sanctioned countries and criminals.
The term "Billionaire" refers to a person who has total assets over a billion. In most cases those assets are shares in some company (or companies). It's not like they have a billion in their sock drawer.
By contrast, when at rest in my wallet, bitcoin is "dormant". It's not earning any interest and other not circulating in the economy. The only "growth" is capital growth.
That growth is predicted on demand outstripping supply. Or on "bigger fools". When the fools run out you're left with tulips.
Billionaires do not literally have big rooms full of money, like a common Disney duck-plutocrat. In general, no-one much is holding large amounts of _cash_/cash-equivalent, except to some extent for the likes of insurance companies, who are obliged to do it for risk management reasons.
I sleep better at night knowing my savings aren't part of a massive Ponzi scheme that's going to one day leave lots of working class people holding the bag as the savings they invested in bitcoin are transferred to the wealthy insiders.
If you own a house you are part of a Ponzi scheme in most developed nations.
Japan already has houses worth $0 because Japan has run out of population growth to keep the demand for houses growing.
The same issue will occur in other countries that have low population growth. In New Zealand we have been importing people so house prices have been appreciating. However my impression is that other countries are competing for immigrants (NZ seems to be slowly relaxing our filters).
Also if you ever had a mortgage then you had a leveraged investment (often dangerously leveraged).
Yes and that is absolutely a problem, houses should go down in value as they are used just like your car does. The fact that we've learned nothing from all the previous real estate bubbles and continue to use houses as investment opportunities is pure insanity.
> If you own a house you are part of a Ponzi scheme in most developed nations.
Not unless you explicitly choose to.
If you own a house to have a roof above you, to have a comfortable and safe place for you and your family, if you love and care about that place, then that's what you are getting out of the house.
Its monetary value changes are "just" a side story.
But if you buy a house purely as an investment, then yeah.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme by design, that's not a bug it's a feature. All participants are aware that they are paying into social security to redistribute that wealth to vulnerable individuals.
People are not paying into bitcoin expecting to redistribute their wealth to the insiders.
What does that mean? USD value decreased that much and bitcoin proved itself as an asset with tangible value (like gold?), or did value of bitcoin itself rise? I’m not a currency guy, so I don’t pretend to know crap, it’s a real question, not rhetorical.
It means that if you bought under $100k, you are no longer the biggest fool. Bitcoin is completely unworkable as an everyday currency and this this is due to multiple factors. Any attempt to address these shortcomings ends up slowly[0] re-inventing the modern financial system and its various systems of trust. People who try to convince you otherwise are simply in search of a bigger fool, since they bring up the USD value of bitcoin.
[0]: but also too quickly, hence all the breaches and 8-figure heists
If you snooze through the day-by-day, season-by-season noise, the volatility of Bitcoin is a fun and relaxing rocket to ride. You just have to ignore all discussion focused on time frames of less than four years.
There's a deep and liquid market for Bitcoin - El Salvador isn't even a major holder in the grand scheme of things. I don't see what's socially unacceptable about selling Bitcoin to a willing buyer; it's simply a transaction between two parties, no different from trading foreign currency like USD. There's also no indication that they plan to spend or trade their Bitcoin anytime soon.
> i don't see what's socially unacceptable about selling Bitcoin to a willing buyer
Well you're accepting payment for something people are expecting to hold value. Bitcoin only has value to a small subset of people with money. I'd definitely judge you for selling it if you have options for financial transactions via SWIFT.
Keep in mind that El Salvador is tiny. This is like 14 days of El Salvador's entire GDP. Or scaled to GDP, it's like giving a $1.2 Trillion loan to the USA.
What do you mean "gave" them 1.4 Billion? It's a loan so it has to be repaid. Usually, this is unsaid but with crypto people you sometimes have to explain basic financial conditions. Also, the loan was to bail them from risks of Bitcoin.
Being granted a loan of $1.4B with favourable terms under the extended fund facility is an enormous privilege. El Salvador is certainly getting far more favourable terms than would for their USD-denominated bonds. Putting it another way, El Salvador being given a line of credit that would have cost them hundreds of millions of dollars had they sold bonds to raise this cash through traditional means.
It's funny to have to explain basic government loan mechanics to this comment, given the derisive comment about "crypto people" needing basic financial concepts explained.
A deficit is not a loan. The USD and the historical strength and faith on the US allowed the US to offer its own securities, not ones pwned by and with terms dictated by external entities.
are you talking about a trade deficit (the US operated at a trade deficit virtually the entire time it grew from 13 former colonies to the post WWII economic colossus. Lending money to a growing economy so it can turn around and purchase the equipment you are selling which it will use to be more productive is the secret sauce of a growing economy)
or are you talking about a budget deficit? many countries around the world operate with budget deficits; "socialist" governments generally have higher deficits as they spend to maintain living standards whether the economy justifies it or not. The size of the deficit (they will grow all the time) does not matter, what matters is "as a %age of GDP".
none of this, btw, has much to do with monetary policy, the maintenance of the currency.
"strong" or "weak" currency really makes no difference. The strength/weakness of the currency how the books are balanced after the fact of what has happened in the actual economy. A country with a strong currency will find imports inexpensive, and will have trouble selling its goods, and citizens will be incented to buy imports. A country with a weak currency will have difficulty importing goods, but will have less trouble exporting. It's the currency that balances these books.
This is essentially my point, I guess too briefly put- a country getting a loan is not an indictment of that country's currency; that is a huge leap to conclusions as evidenced by the world's best currency being maintained by a country that is borrowing 5% of its GDP each year.
The USD, being the world reserve currency and currency of trade, must operate at a deficit. It's only through a USD deficit that other countries can grow their reserves commensurately with economic growth, which is how the USD stays the reserve currency. The USD operates at a deficit because it's such a good currency.
I used to be close minded as well before actually studying Bitcoin.
There are plenty of bad actors in crypto but Bitcoin is at worst a very interesting experiment that can profoundly change the world for the better. Most is not all of the rest of crypto is basically hawk tuah coin with less obvious illegitimacy. In fact bitcoiners don't consider Bitcoin as "crypto"
> You don't need to be dumb to fall for a dumb idea
I get you can do something stupid in a rush but the longer you have time to reconsider, the higher the likelihood that you "didn't just fall for a dumb idea". Bitcoin is 15 years old.
> Also, the average person is smarter than about 4 billion people.
Bitcoiners are drawn from a normal distribution and not from the bottom part of the distribution, so that argument doesn't really work here.
There are less than 5 billion smartphone users, and you think every fifth has a bitcoin? Though, I'm not surprised hearing such estimations from a bitcoiner.
Anyway, no matter how large the unity of dumbs is or how passionate they are about their goal, it won't make them smarter. What they can achieve, though, is making other people dumber than they are, so that they can appear relatively "smarter".
Let's say they're taking a financial risk which incentivizes (some of) them to study the matter more closely than someone else that is not taking that risk.
Does that mean they're smarter? I don't think so. It's a bet they're willing to take and time will tell who was right.
> IMF gave them 1.4 billion to abandon the “experiment”
No, that is not what the quote says. It says it was a condition on a loan.
There is a huge difference between unsolicitedly saying “hey, I’ll give you money for you to stop betting on horses” or being asked for money and replying “OK, but if I do lend you the money you have to promise me you won’t spend it on horse betting; I want it back”.
There is a book called "Talking to your daughter about Economics", where the author explains one of the problems with bitcoin is, you cant print more of it in a crisis. Maybe thats what happened here.
That may be one of the problems with bitcoin as legal tender and official state currency but not a problem with Bitcoin itself, quite the opposite: as evidenced by the genesis block’s embedded message: “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”
Ironically part of the long-term problem was El Salvador's dollarization, also preventing them from printing in a crisis (that crisis being the COVID pandemic).
Dollarization was unpopular at first in El Salvador but after 24 years of dollarization, and both right and left wing governments, there are are no official plans of rolling it back. It's way too convenient to use the world's most used currency as our everyday currency.
Or maybe the IMF doesn't want the money they "give" to El Salvador to be dissipated into a synthetic commodity masquerading as a deflationary currency.
I'm not going to defend the IMF here... they're sort of like sharks swimming in the national currency markets (look up "Our Brand is Crisis" and "Life and Debt" for more info, and then read Summers' "The Payment System" for the IMF's take on things.)
But... I think my point is... I don't think there's any more conspiracy going on here than normal IMF conspiracy. But the IMF is sort of open about it, so is it still a conspiracy? I don't think the IMF or WB care one whit about cryptocurrencies, they just don't even register.
EDIT: Oh, and "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man" is also nice and conspiratorial. If half of the author's assertions are truthful, there's WAY more happening in Latin America vis a vis international banking cabals.
The very first IMF loan ever given was to France for reconstruction. One of the terms for the condition was to remove the only elected communist in their government from their position.
Arguably, both preconditions could have been simply intended to secure an eventual return on the loan. Having a communist in political leadership and allowing citizens to pay their taxes in Bitcoin both increase fiscal risk. I can understand the IMF wanting to reduce that risk as much as possible before providing a loan.
No country with its own money ever needs to get the IMF involved.
Largely because the only place the IMF can get your money is from you.
Currencies are public monopolies.
The problems always arise when a state starts issuing state backed liabilities in other denominations - as there is no way for a state to absolve itself of that debt without paying it back. It becomes a debtors prison.
If the IMF was loaning them 1.4B to do economic development then its reasonable that the country not keep a massive liability on its balance sheets.
Imagine I wanted to loan your car company 100M to build out a factory because I believe in the product. I'm told that your company keeps all its reserves in bitcoin and its possible that even if the factory is successful that the loan wont be repaid if bitcoin falls.
I think if you are obsessed with bitcoin its easy to see this as conspiratorial, but the reality is no bank is going to loan a (company, person, country) money in cash if they are told the loan may default if bitcoin falls.
Of course it was an utter failure. Why else would they need 1.4 B USD from the IMF when BTC has run up what... 6x or so since they started with this "experiment"?
This wasn't a vendetta or a political maneuver. The IMF is intending to enforce stability on loan recipients but insisting on sensible policy. Per the article, the program was already unsuccessful and they wanted it removed as a risk factor.
> this was clearly something else than a failure of the currency itself
They needed the loan. The original thesis was taxes on crypto bros’ business and tourism would increase revenues while crypto-based lending would provide an alternative to the IMF. Neither panned out. This was a failure of Bitcoin to provide any of the international benefits of the dollar financial system.
They gave it to them, with a contingency that they need to stop reckless financially dangerous policies, like allowing a wildly volatile cryptocurrency to be legal tender backed by the government at various levels of society.
IMF loans often come with the stipulation that you need to reign in wild and speculative financial policies
"I dislike crypto as much as the next guy but this was clearly something else than a failure of the currency itself."
Zeke Faux who wrote the book "Number Go Up", a George Plimpton-styled account which was released last year, went to El Salvador and tried to use crypto as currency.
BECKER: ... But also, I just want to point out that in 2021, the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, announced that his government was going to be betting on Bitcoin. And we actually have a bit of tape from him at that year's Bitcoin conference with a lot of cheers from crypto enthusiasts about his government's use of Bitcoin.
Let's listen.
NAYIB BUKELE: Next week, I will send to Congress a bill that will make Bitcoin a legal tender in El Salvador. In the short term, this will generate jobs and help provide financial inclusion to thousands outside the formal economy. And in the medium and long term, we hope that this small decision can help us push forward (CHEERS).
BECKER: And following that announcement, the government of El Salvador encouraged businesses to use Bitcoin. Zeke Faux, you traveled to El Salvador. What did you
find out there?
FAUX: ... And people were literally, I was at this conference. People were, it was one of the first ones I went to, people were in tears, and I just, I was like, what is this weird world, and they all said, you got to go to El Salvador, you got to see, it's the future, it's going to help the poor, they're all using Bitcoin. And the listeners are probably asking themselves, "What does this even mean, how does this make sense?" And it doesn't make sense. I got there, and one of the first places I went to was this little roadside store.
And the president had passed this Bitcoin law, which meant that all businesses were supposed to accept Bitcoin as payment. The country's main currency is the dollar, and they didn't abandon that. But they're supposed to also use Bitcoin. And I went to the store, and I pulled, I grabbed, I asked for a bottle of water.
And the clerk gave it to me, so I'm holding the water. And then in my terrible gringo Spanish, I said, "Puedo pagar con Bitcoin, por favor?" And the clerk just said, "Basura!" Trash! And grabbed the water out of my hand, and just walked away. Get out of here, you dumb tourist. I don't want to use your Bitcoin.
And that was the attitude I got all over the place. Despite this huge push from the president, the currency was totally rejected by the people. Stores would only use it begrudgingly. And what using Bitcoin means is that they would have a special payment terminal and I could use an app on my phone to send my Bitcoins to them instead of using my credit card or my dollars, but the terminals never worked right.
They're very slow on there and people complained. "Hey, the price of Bitcoin goes up and down a lot. Why would I want to accept that for my surf lesson or to sell you a beer? How about you just give me some dollars?" So the ones that did accept that it was just as like a courtesy for the annoying Bitcoin tourists, which I
became one of."
> The IMF made this a condition for a loan of 1.4 billion US dollars (1.35 billion euros). In December of last year, the IMF reached an agreement with President Nayib Bukele’s government on the loan of the stated amount to strengthen the country’s “fiscal sustainability” and mitigate the “risks associated with Bitcoin,” as it was described.
—-
I dislike cryptocurrencies as much as the next guy but this was clearly something else than a failure of the currency itself