1) Governments disapprove of BTC's self-proclaimed role as money (=legal tender currency).
That's simply not true. Almost all of the world's governments
simply don't care about Bitcoin. There is no mysterious conspiracy about Bitcoin's adoption, but instead it's very simple: Bitcoin is extremely expensive and slow to transact, and it will never ever scale to even a tiny fraction of the world's daily transactions.
Also, the term "legal tender" is
not what most people think it means. All "legal tender" means in actual law is that citizens
must accept this form of payment whether they want to or not. It's not necessary for governments to use their police forces to shove Bitcoin down people's throats, which is what "legal tender" actually means.
Most people assume "legal tender" means, "legal", but that's not correct.
Bitcoin is already legal almost everywhere in the world.
3) For several months now, there has been a "movement" by governments to regulate BTC. The narrative of "drug traffickers' currency" has completely faded.
That's because a) most Bitcoin today is being bought through centralized entities like apps and brokers, because consumers simply want to invest in Bitcoin as a meme; and b) Bitcoin itself is subject to chain analysis since it's a public ledger, so real criminals are better off using products like Monero instead.
5) Now, some Governments are quite willing and already doing so to tax BTC capital gains like any other financial instrument. In Italy, theres talk of a 42% tax rate (borderline unconstitutional, but we wont get into that here).
In the US at least, BTC gains are treated like any other gains in terms of taxation. In in the US, if sell
anything for more than you paid for it, you are taxed on the gains. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin, it's just taxes.
Some countries tax different asset gains at different rates (in the US, your own home is tax a little differently), but there's absolutely nothing on the horizon in the US to do that to Bitcoin or any other digital asset. I suspect the complexity alone would stop them from doing it, but of course it would be unfair to single out one asset alongside all of the others.
Obviously there are the billionaire Bitcoin whales (the ones who own about 90% of all Bitcoin
) who are trying to lobby the government to give themselves a gigantic tax break, but I really don't see that happening.
I argue that it is possible, and even likely, that Governments will accept if price volatility stabilizes that BTC naturally evolves into a Store of Value to prevent it from being used as Legal Tender Currency.
Again, the fact that you
do not understand what the term "legal tender" means makes your argument incoherent here.
Governments perceive its use as Currency to be far more disadvantageous for two reasons:
A) The technological "DNA" of BTC allows anyone, with a relatively low educational threshold, to acquire BTC pseudonymously and own an asset that is, effectively, non-confiscatable because it isnt held by third parties (unlike large quantities of GOLD);
B) Governments need and will always need the ability to act on the differential between the underlying asset and monetary supply, which is not possible with BTC unless the protocol is changed by the majority of nodes (currently a few thousand worldwide, with no interest in making such changes).
A government can compel citizens to give up their Bitcoin just as easily as they could compel them to give anything else up: just put them in jail until they hand it over (this is a variant of the "five dollar wrench attack").
