I am not sure about your point. You are just trying to suggest that bitcoin is failing on its own in El Salvador because it is too volatile and maybe that volatility is more of a factor for poor folks rather than richer folks?
We already know that any investment needs to have discretionary income, so poor people do not tend to have much if any discretionary income, so they are not able to invest into something like bitcoin very easily...
I accept that bitcoin is somewhat biased in favor of the rich, since the rich tend to have some discretionary income as compared with the poor, and if the poor is ONLY left with using bitcoin as a payments mechanism, then poor folks might not have a lot of incentive to use bitcoin as a payment mechanism since some of the wallets can be burdensome to use.. unless maybe they are receiving payments in bitcoin, but then they still might end up converting those payments into dollars.. so sure, getting involved in bitcoin payments might be a bit of a burden for poor people.. yet even poor people might still be able to save $10 per week.. but yeah, it can be quite difficult to presume the level of discretionary income that any person has, whether poor or not, and surely just by definition, poor people will tend to have way less discretionary income rather than higher wealth people.
Even in the west, there are a lot of folks who are not accustomed to investing or saving, so they don't really know how to save or invest, even if they actually have discretionary income that that they could use for investing (or saving up) in bitcoin.
I think the truth is if Bukele would not be hindered by the IMF to acquire more bitcoin without risking financial support or existing contracts, his pro bitcoin policy would likely pay off spectacularly in a decade or two from now. The
models discussed in the forum and some of the
charts and overviews shared are plausible to me. I know they are speculative, but I don't see too many good counter arguments except for the ultimate nuke that cryptography breaks, but then our smallest problem is bitcoin's integrity.
As an early mover, El Salvador under the leadership of Bukele could have landed the coup of the 21st century. They are now at less than $30 billion national debt while holding around 6,000 BTC. If they were still able to increase their holdings incrementally at these prices and the whole asset class goes up in value in a few years from now and captures more and more of total global wealth, El Salvador could theoretically become debt free based on their bitcoin investment alone.
These are assumptions, but I repeat that I think this is not unrealistic. Even if it is not debt free as a result, having reserves in a non-inflationary asset class that covers like more than 50% of national debt is a big deal, especially when that asset class hasn't reached saturation phase.
But there is one question lingering in my mind about Bukele, El Salvador and bitcoin reserves. In a criminal country like that, when the most dangerous criminals follow those news and bitcoin reserves are actually tracked publicly, what is the risk that Bukele will disappear over night one day or be attacked by a military size cartel army? You could give criminals a hard time to sell all that gold around the world, but bitcoin is so much better than gold for normal people and, therefore, criminals alike.