The Financial Times published an article where it said that El Salvador has good economic indicators, it is successfully paying off obligations on bonds, but still the newspaper is trying to put it in a negative light because of bitcoins. This is despite the fact that they themselves note that the negative forecasts that predicted El Salvador's decline and default have not come true, and its credit ratings have grown. It seems that they will persist in their bitcoin hate to the last, no matter how well El Salvador develops.

Based on the statistics available on the Crime rate statistics-El Salvador it is clear that the crime rate have increased during the year 2015 and from there it had decreased gradually. Many people using crime as a source of income is happening around, but the number have decreased. In the past when it is discussed about El Salvador people used to talk about the gangster culture and now this has changed. When it comes to El Salvador, everyone talk about tourism and bitcoin which too indicate the growth and the decline in the gangs that involve into criminal activities.

Yes thank you. In this news, my attention was more drawn to the data on the improvement of the economic situation of El Salvador, on their success in the financial and tax spheres, and so on. This shows that there are enough experienced and smart people in the leadership of the country to be expected to be able to cope with the development of the bitcoin industry. The pessimism of the media in this regard just seems completely unexpected and unjustified, if based on their own analytics.

tread history

El Salvador's trade volume as of 2020 is $4.47 billion. Bitcoin trading volume in 2021 was $7.26 billion. Bitcoin was declared legal in El Salvador after nearly doubling trading volume. And nowadays more investment and trading role is more among entrepreneurs because tax is totally free nowadays. That's why El Salvador is called the city of dreams for Bitcoin.

I would say that there is still a lot of work ahead. So far, El Salvador's results are good, but they are due to the comprehensive work of the government's financial department. And bitcoin in this work is only one of the components, and the number of Salvadorans using bitcoin suggests that, so far, bitcoin is not as rooted in the country as one might want. I like the success of the El Salvadoran government in introducing bitcoin, but I am afraid to overestimate them. It's too early to calm down.

The systematic way we can say to the current government of El Salvador under the leadership of Nayyib Bukele in promoting Bitcoin as a good breakthrough towards future economic changes on the adoption of Bitcoin.

I also think that what the government of El Salvador is doing regarding Bitcoin is like building an initial foundation, because if the foundation that is being built is totally successful, then Nayyib Bukele can sit smiling happily watching his country's economic progress when there are no more chances to be elected as president .

Bukele's government is undoubtedly made up of lies and false hopes, because it initially played with the drop on the Chivo wallet to bring people closer to Bitcoin and knew that having a poor nation they would.  Now Chivo has become a centralized weapon of power that holds Bitcoin and tracks every transaction, so it will be easier to know how much money enters El Salvador from people who migrated elsewhere but who support their families.  It's a long and winding conversation, but Bukele found a way that is as anonymous-oriented as Bitcoin is to make it transparent to itself.  So when you think Bukele is doing well know that you are wrong.

I agree with everything you said here, but I have been following this thread for a long time and I feel that the discussion all too often deviates from the original subject, which is Bitcoin as legal tender in a sovereign state. I have often read explicitly or between the lines that this thread discusses more about El Salvador being an investor in Bitcoin than an economy being operated with Bitcoin as one legal tender.

I think that most of those who post here are not really interested in the deep implications that the term legal tender is holding. But that would actually be the much more interesting discussion. What does it mean if Bitcoin becomes legal tender? It is not only the obvious answer like "you can pay your debt with it" or "settle your tax with it" or "merchants have to accept it as a form of payment". All these obvious answers entail a plethora of implications from the perspective of both the national and international political and social economy.

But in order for people discuss deep implications, they would have to put a lot of effort into educating themselves first with lots of terms in their isolated form and the interdependencies between them.

Again, legal tender is a topic that gets me excited, but this topic has come off track before it really even got started. Or perhaps I am nit-picking and I take OP's headline too seriously.

Yes, you are nit-picking, and likely you are wrong too in your attempt at making a narrow perspective regarding what this thread is about since we have been talking about the essence of the subject matter that was presented in OP and also the various perspectives that forum members have on the topic, with 65 pages of thread so far...

...and surely bitcoin has already become legal tender in El Salvador, so it is not a "what if"situation, but it is a situation in which something had already happened (Such as El Salvador making bitcoin legal tender) and various reactions and perspectives on the topic, and surely we are witnessing a variety of ways in which the El Salvador's increasing adoption of bitcoin - including that it has proclaimed bitcoin as legal tender are playing out, including various reactions and ongoing developments and even whether or not El Salvador may well have any impacts on various bitcoin network effects through its outwardly friendly approach to bitcoin.