Why not? It's just a pseudonym anyone can claim to be this or that if it benefits the market in a positive way. Any country that adopts Bitcoin as legal tender, promotes its use for any kind of (big or small) transactions, or implements supportive regulations can call itself the "Bitcoin capital." But that won't affect Bitcoin's decentralization. It might influence the price, for better or worse, but it doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin remains decentralized.

You brought up really smart point about Bitcoin capital and I completely agree with you. It is interesting how countries like US Dubai Hong Kong Singapore India, and Nigeria all want to be major players in crypto world hoping to attract money and new ideas because being friendly to crypto can help their citizens. Even Europe is trying to set clear rules for crypto. But main idea behind Bitcoin is that it is spread out everywhere and is not controlled by one person or place. So while city might become big center for crypto businesses it does not make sense to call it Bitcoin capital because Bitcoin is not meant to have one central spot. Countries wanting to be crypto capitals are really just trying to draw in smart people and money for whole crypto industry not to centralize Bitcoin itself. So yes there should not be one Bitcoin capital because Bitcoin true nature is global and decentralized.

There is no such thing as the Bitcoin capital in the world, because Bitcoin is decentralized, and ownership is spread across various countries.

However if it varies depends on top countries by holding Bitcoin, with significant adoption or Bitcoin mining hub therefore US will be the one on top since US is leading in Holding Bitcoin and has more mining hubs.

It's just title, any place can be crypto capital if they embrace it enough.
It has nothing to do with bitcoin anyway at the end of the day bitcoin is decentralized and can be used by anyone

El salvador with the fact that it accept btc as legal tender does deserve the title to some extent.

OR in the world where "attention" can be monetized in one way or another, then "Attention is Power". But you're absolutely right about "Soft Power". The mere perception that an entity is powerful could be debated that it is actually powerful, especially in a world where Facebook, X, Tiktok, and the other of these sorts of apps exist.

 

Yeah, with the right campaigns, even X can become Y, it's all about how much you hear about the fact and are you willing to do the research yourself or not, even simply googling the facts that make up the situation described..

I am not sure about the state of European 'Cryptocurrency cities' to be honest.  A while ago, The Netherlands held the crown for having this 'Bitcoin Boulevard' in Hague.  It was widely known for being the one street where you could pay with Bitcoin pretty much any where.  But that may have changed.  They also had a few Bitcoin associations fighting for Bitcoin.

A few other European countries are supportive of Bitcoin too, maybe not the government so much but the businesses.  Austria, the Czech, Germany, Netherlands, Italy are only a few to name of a pretty large list.  Unfortunately however, I do believe other Asian countries and El Salvador took the lead a long time ago.

The United States is in my opinion the only one to hold a fake crown.  I do not care for the news of one country planning to become the 'capital' of Bitcoin if on the other hand the same country comes with the worst Privacy laws and regulations of all.  It is like ATMs.  Years ago, they were spreading like wildfire and I would have paid the chunky commission for the Privacy I was ensured.  But nowadays when they ask you for mobile phone confirmation or even your ID, I have no business supporting such dystopian nightmares.

Europe comes second worst, or at least it looks like it considering the laws the European Commission are planning to bring to the public.

This makes no sense what so ever.  Why is the consent of Satoshi necessary to build or claim a Bitcoin city?

If a country decides to bring Bitcoin closer to main stream and to also bring the majority of Cryptocurrency investors over, I have no problem if they claim it to also be the capital of Bitcoin.  In fact, this may ultimately be healthier to Bitcoin.  If you have no competition, you have no reason to innovate.  If countries compete for the capital of Bitcoin, we will all only see good things coming out of it.

It will most likely end up being a competition of who offers the better advantages for investors or for the Bitcoin users generally.  It may lead to more lax regulations.  For example, The United States may regulate Bitcoin but do nothing for privacy.  Then, other large countries may be tempted to attract investors to THEM by regulating Bitcoin while also considering privacy.  Ultimately, if this means investors are showing signs of willing to move their investments to the other country, The United States may feel the need to also start considering privacy.  If you ask me, this can only end well for us all.

It really hard to just one single definition of a Bitcoin capital of the world,

1. it could be the biggest holder of Bitcoin
2. very friendly and has invested a lot of Bitcoin
3. makes Bitcoin as currency and it's legal tender for them

So there is no one that might be fit for that category. But the thing is that Bitcoin is slowly moving forward and being adopted now. Unlike before on what we heard about it is all negative and government are turning against it.

Now, we have countries like trying to get into the position to at least have Bitcoin as their national reserve just like what US announced when Trump was elected the President.