The government will never support anything that they will not benefit from so we should know that the government will continue to have a problem with crypto, in my country they arrest anyone involved in crypto because the government believes that crypto is one of the things that make things price high in the country, some people believe in what government says but I will even believe that because there is nothing concern crypto with the price of things.

When a country has good leaders who understand things and also do their work as a leader they will never see crypto as the problem of the country, the government will continue to panic about crypto as they are not benefiting anything from it.

And you think the government will pause their surveillance at the institutional level without reaching the grassroots which is the individual level? Not possible. They are consumed with controlling power over subjects. Bad a thing we don't get to decide who should buy and own bitcoin and who shouldn't. And it doesn't take them anything to print all the money they will want to buy the quantity of btc they'll need to achieve their aim. So there's no how the individuals can be exempted if such happens.

Take a look at the traditional fiat system. The government get hold of the financial institutions (commercial banks) through the Central Bank, and through these commercial banks they are able to ensure compulsory KYC of financial transactions at the individual level.

It's not the fact that governments are ignorant about the benefits of Bitcoin, they are fully aware of what Bitcoin offers and what not. If you look at core idea of Bitcoin which is p2p electronic cash that allow any two entities to make transaction directly without need of the middlemen. This simple idea kills the need of centralised institutes like Banks which are fully controlled by the governments. The decentralised Bitcoin in simple words is not in interest of governments, they will only accept Bitcoin they can monitor i.e. the one going through centralised exchanges. 

With the technology that we have today, it is hard to be ignorant on things as you can easily catch up with the news and updates these days. So the governments are not ignorant anymore as to what is happening over this digital market as it is only one click away how to learn or educate themselves about this technology. Just consider the fact about the rise of AI, they can surely use it to their own advantage and ask this AI if this market is indeed giving benefits to the people.

But on the note about the AML/KYC towards crypto market, I believe, we need to accept this angle because if we want crypto to penetrate the mainstream market, it needs this kind of protocol in order to curb scammers that can take advantage of the anonymity of this currency. We are already in the stage where it needs regularization from the government in order for people to trust this market. Else, it can easily be proliferated by illegal actors in the market.

You're right with the way that all most all country government are trying to be crypto friendly one could has wondered if by now Bitcoin must has grown past this level because Bitcoin is now what is in the lips of most government officials especially those looking for political office as Bitcoin has topped their campaign agendas but one thing that most Bitcoin enthusiast should know is that politicians should not be trusted because they cam be using that find themselves to the corridor of political power



The issue of regulation has been the issue by now with all government having strict regulations and making KYC verification a must and having a huge tax on transactions so i think that governments acknowledging crypto doesn't necessarily mean that it is all well witb crypto

Not every flag is worth saluting. There is always fine print with every acknowledgement. Sometimes the fine print is the entire story. Governments do not support Bitcoin because they like the idea of self-custody or the poetry of sovereignty. They do it when they need a new tool, like taxes, monitoring, or just something that will make headlines when their own money is in trouble.

You see the first layer: a speculative asset, not money. Allow them to invest, but do not let them escape. It is a cage formed of digits. The same goes for the AML and KYC scaffolding. Call it compliance, call it safety, but let’s not lie: it is also an erasure. What about privacy? It has to fit in the spreadsheet first. More decentralisation? Only if it fits in the database.

And then there are taxes. Taxes all the time. Acknowledgement as a tollbooth. Come in, pay, be measured, and be observed. It is not a revolution if a tax code is introduced to welcome it. It becomes a revenue stream.

Sometimes, official recognition is like being in a velvet handcuff. Rather than a permit to speculate, Bitcoin belief is liberty from authority. Which is more valuable: an exit or an asset class? Do not be happy with the border guards just because they make a new lane. They still want to look through your bags.

Since government cannot beat bitcoin, then they decided to acknowledge it either but not for the purpose of accepting bitcoin as an alternative currency, but putting a lot of restrictions so that people will be aware that bitcoin isn’t fully developed yet, and isn’t reliable to serve as a currency. Hence, instead of promoting bitcoin positively, they end up raising awareness for people to avoid bitcoin at all cost.

Well, there’s no issues on bitcoin acknowledgment coming from the government, because it’s the role of the government to recognize any tool that provides opportunity to the people. But what we don’t know is that they are doing it negatively, not to encourage people to maximize bitcoin usage, but to control bitcoin on whatever activities that people are doing to it.

Bitcoin promotes transparency and that’s something the government lacks, that’s why bitcoin will never be acknowledged positively by the government.

Your skepticism is reasonable. Somehow, government recognizing Bitcoin appears to be positive, because of the normal psychological effect of reliability that happens when it is that the government is in support of something (just guessing anyways). it's always not. Base on this, Bitcoin is regularly confined to a speculative asset instead of a fiat currency.. It is obvious governments usually make use of this "acknowledgement" to impose high taxes and destroy privacy, which definitely discourage investors. Some endorsements are very detrimental sometimes.

The government primary owns the obligation of seeing to the running of literally the majority of industry in a any given state. If they can't control it, the next thing they always do is to try fighting it till they gain some level of control over it. Bitcoin isn't in the class of things they can easily control and hence, they will normally want to get involved either directly or indirectly just so they can control it to an extent.

If the government is one that knows bitcoin real good and is interested in it, they can decide to invest in it which will mean that they are positively supporting it. We can see a classical example like the case of el Salvador that Thier head has an high level of support for bitcoin. He wouldn't fight against it because he's supposed to be aware that bitcoin is decentralised and that the decentralised nature of bitcoin is for the good of all bitcoin holders and the longevity of the bitcoin network. Some individual investors that have turned whales associating with bitcoin has caused bitcoin to DIP when at some point it got clear that they are just in for the gains but in the long run, not everyone or institution is going to be favourable to bitcoin.