This is his decision, no one argues. I even suspect what caused such a decision, but it did not work out, since the venture with bitcoin bonds did not gain due demand from investors and the desired billion dollars of investment did not work out. The problem is not that El Salvador accepted bitcoin despite further persuasion from the International Monetary Fund to abandon this idea to count on another bailout. The problem is the high expectations of the community and the blind admiration for this event in style: look, El Salvador has accepted bitcoin as a means of payment, it's so cool. And in practice, besides applause, what do we have? Nothing, even
@Ratimov I understand the point you are trying to emphasize here and you have clearly outlined the points behind your decisions, but also note, even though the news of El Salvador Bitcoin adoption is over-celebrated by the community without adequate attention being paid to the impact of this Bitcoin adoption on the overall Bitcoin market behavior and how the IMF has kicked against this El Salvador move to adopt Bitcoin which is the measure reason why the bitcoin bound project could not fly since the external contributor did not find the project worthy and stable enough to invest such huge capital on, because of the uncertainty of the future Bitcoin market condition and lack of consistency in Bitcoin price which could not be practically projected for a capital project. That is the international monetary funds/(IMF) view anyways.
Now the point am trying to make is, that even though El Salvador is passive by many to have taken a wrong decision on Bitcoin adoption, emphasis should be ace on the long-term advantage of this decision on the Economic production of El Salvador, with the growth of Bitcoin in that country a lot of other sectors we develop along with it, take for instance the Bitcoin city which was made to be one of the biggest Bitcoin development in that country will Foster a lot of economic activities that will generate both direct and indirect jobs for the citizens, and the power sector will greatly improve because the volcano will become the major source of power to the Bitcoin city and if their capacity of electricity generation increase along the way the power sector in El Salvador will also benefit from the klw of electricity generated from the volcano.
We should give some time for El Salvador to put the dots together and figure out ways to develop their master plan and I know for sure in the next coming year we will have a lot of verifiable data to base our analysis on and then we can figure out what direction this whole thing is heading either negative or positive.
What I fear most is the continuity of this project after this present administration and what becomes of Bitcoin in El Salvador after Nayib Bukele leaves office will the next president be a Bitcoin fan or will he have a dark spot for Bitcoin, this is my most worries at the moment.
What makes you think that this project will be implemented at all? Just because the president of El Salvador promises it? Doubtful argument. This can still remain at the level of promises, or then it turns out that this project is not expedient or something like that, as was the case with bitcoin bonds. El Salvador and its government are voicing ideas that are sometimes not economically feasible and therefore do not find due interest among investors. Bitcoin city may turn out to be the same project as Bitcoin bonds. Why do I also think that mentions of El Salvador are not commensurate with the adoption they bring to the crypto community? Look at the countries of Africa, they do much more for adoption than El Salvador. People use it because they themselves see it as a benefit, instead of their national currencies and local banking systems. There is a huge number of bitcoin users who do not even have normal smartphones and Internet access, but they still use bitcoin in GSM networks. Many different startups are emerging that help use bitcoin as a means of transferring value between countries, buying food, accessing foreign goods, and much more. According to some reports, the number of crypto users in Africa has approached 54 million.
Here it is, a real adoption, without any theatrical performances showing the number of downloads, without this clownery with a bitcoin city, which will live only on a mock-up for a long time and its not a fact that it will be released in full scale, without any investment in bitcoin bonds. The people of Africa themselves have come to the conclusion that bitcoin solves their daily problems and they want to use it, in contrast to El Salvador, where the president said: Dear citizens, let me introduce a new means of payment. And the citizens answered him: well, why the fuck do we need it, your bitcoin?
This is the difference between a real adoption and a circus performance from El Salvador, which is joyfully and blindly applauded by a huge part of the community.
First I have quite a few doubts whether your renditions of facts are very accurate in regards to bitcoin being rejected by El Salvadorean citizens - and Bukele and other government representatives have quite a bit of discretion regarding various ways forward that they want to go in the government, and it seems that Bukele remains pretty popular in El Salvador.. so it is difficult to understand why you want to be fighting those kinds of on the ground facts.
Second, I wonder why you seem so hostile towards bitcoiners appreciating the various efforts that are being made in bitcoin, and to continue to argue that bitcoiners are blindly following some kind of a disingenuine scheme in bitcoin, when the facts also don't seem to support those kinds of accusations either. There tend to be a lot of bullshit framing of arguments to be proclaiming that bitcoiners are some kind of a homogenous community that agree on x, y and z... which surely is bullshit since it has tendencies to imply that bitcoin has varying centralizing tendencies.. which are also not implications supported by actual evidence..
Regarding your compare and contrast of various on the grounds and grass roots efforts on the ground in various places in Africa, none of those are necessarily preferable, even though they seem to be working quite well as you suggest - and in the end bitcoin is going to have pushes that come from all directions, and the mere fact that El Salvador is promoting bitcoin in El Salvador does not necessarily mean that on the ground efforts are not also informing El Salvador's approach to attempting to create bitcoin friendly policies.
Surely, if you amorphously refer to Africa, then you seem to be either avoiding talking about various governmental efforts or you are trying to minimize various governmental efforts, and surely many of us following the bitcoin space realize that Nigeria is frequently pointed out as one of the highest of bitcoin adoption countries in spite of their government seeming to fight against bitcoin in a variety of ways, so sure there are likely a decent number of valid points to suggest that bitcoin adoption can take place in a variety of ways, and I have quite a few doubts in accepting your El Salvador bashing framework that wants to suggest that bitcoin is ONLY stronger if it grows in a hostile environment.. when your analysis seems incomplete at best when you are seeming to want to make battle out the ideas and to impose what you believe to be better or worse, when both ways can exist at the same time and they do exist at the same time, and whether these kinds of various systems end up merging and converging or creating separate systems that compete. The idea of good ideas coming together is referred to as Schelling point, so we have those kinds of things going on at the same time in which the good ideas will end up emerging, but they are not going to come together until time passes and systems bump up against each other (also Nash equilibriums play out too).
It seems to me that in the shorter term there are going to be a whole hell of a lot of ways that bitcoin builds and develops, and likely in the longer run a lot of the systems will merge and converge, and the free-er the market of ideas, the more free and easy it should be to recognize various better systems to beat out the lesser systems - but in the earlier stages of growth there is likely going to be a lot of variations in terms of better and worse attributes, and yet even in that regard, it seems illogical to be proclaiming that systems in Africa are superior to El Salvador's adoption - even if you personally have that opinion.
There is some validity to the thrust of your points that frequently governments overpromise and under deliver, and I doubt anyone would be proclaiming that Bukele would be exempt from those kinds of claims that do not end up materializing, but you seem to be quite inclined to point out the so many ways that Bukele is less then genuine in his assertions - so from your point of view Bukele is largely engaged in spinning matters in ways that he is not going to be able to carry out.. and then you also want to proclaim that bitcoiners just fall in line with whatever he says. Personally, I am not very inclined towards worshiping governments or even leaders, but Bukele has gained a lot of popularity because he has been working to achieve matters that he proclaims to want to do, and I have my doubt that he is even as close as disingenuine that you seem to ongoingly want to paint him. For some reason, it's like no matter what you are wanting to see the negative and maintain high levels of skepticism that do not really seem warranted - even though we are seeing that modifications of plans are being made along the way and sometimes the proclamations regarding what is achievable seem to be a bit much, too.. so for me, even though modifications have come to these projects, I have difficulties concluding that Bukele and his people were being disingenuine in setting those various targets to aim for.
