El Salvador’s $300M Bitcoin ‘Revolution’ Is Failing Miserably
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
They enlisted an entire country in a publicity stunt and cheered on Bukele even as he ordered mass arrests and packed the Supreme Court, which subsequently ruled he could run for reelection despite a constitutional ban.
That makes no sense. El Salvador has adopted the US dollar voluntarily and they can always introduce a demurrage currency.
Alternatively they can double down on RAI which is a non pegged stablecoin that tries to minimize volatility. Yes it is approximately 10% down($3.14 to $2.85) vs the USD but that is still outperforming the euro and roughly comparable to Swiss francs which means it outperformed not only the vast majority of cryptocurrencies during the crash, it also outperforms most fiat currencies.
well, from political/populist standpoint he can always blame this decision on his (corrupt) predecessors, so that's pretty easy to explain in this discourse.
Why is he so bent on Bitcoin, and the rest of it, i don't know.
The same goes for Bitcoin, maybe op didn't use it and therefore doesn't consider it currency, but others did though, therefore it's currency.
Even chickens can be currency, in a barter economy!
> You didn't, others did though, therefore it's a currency
From the first statement you can only conclude that if it’s a currency, then you spend it (by modus tollens). You can’t conclude that if you spend it, then it is a currency.
Why not? It's an abstract concept. Consensus decides whether something fits the definition, or even change the definition so that it fits. And, IMO, if WoW gold is widely accepted to be a currency, then BTC is too. YMMV.
My point refers to those who still bang on the fact that you can't pay BTC directly to buy bread, therefore it's not a currency. Just because it's not used in the economies YOU engage in, doesn't mean it's not a currency. You're just not involved with it.
B: it’s a currency
Here is how the thread went (too lazy for quantifiers and variables).
1. not A => not B
2. So Peso not A => Peso not B
3. You: But Peso A => Peso B
This is a non sequitur. „Not A => Not B“ does not entail „A => B“. That’s what I mean by you can’t conclude it (from the thread). You are however clearly free to make up new things and change the topic. But it looked like you were drawing a conclusion there.
Edit: formatting
You're free to disagree.
Also, from wikipedia:
> A currency is a system of money in common use within a specific environment over time
Peso is a currency, just because the government say that, but ub fact, it only keeps 1 out of 3 functions to be called money:
Store of value. No, the inflation is near 100%
Unit of account. No, because the inflation we don't know if 1000 is too much for something or not.
Medium of exchange. Yes, but not for all, you cannot buy a house with pesos, nobody will sell you that or they will do the exchange at the moment.
Bukele will get away with it, America will bail them out because they don't want more refugees on the border and El Salvadorans will remain poor.
Bitcoin is becoming money because it can be treasured without inflation. That is a terrifying idea for states.
For sure Bitcoin has its risks also, so careful how much you put there.
I plan to buy bitcoins before the digital currencies managed by central banks come and tell us what we can do or not and when depending on the mood and interests of the governor (hidden, of course) at that moment.
Do not say I did not warn you :)