I would rather they discuss the underlying economic issues that the country has than bitcoin. BTC adoption means very little if the country does not address its economic and social issues, and it seems like El Salvador is ignoring all of that and jumping to a ''quick fix''. I am glad people whose local currency is worth less than a carrot, but that doesn't solve the issues, it only masks them.
Huh? Shouldn't they be able to determine for themselves what they would like to discuss or not discuss and how much of the discussion to have in terms of their topics and whether they believe it might be helpful to discuss ?
Why wouldn't a country be able to do more than one thing at a time, even if such country might be some rinky-dinky and hardly able to afford anything location?
Last time that I checked, bitcoin is not only for rich people.
Last time I checked, you do not even have to buy a whole BTC.
Last time I checked, there are a variety of ways that something like bitcoin could be adopted or implemented.
Surely, the lightning network seems to establish a lot of potential transactional mechanisms, and bitcoin's historical price performance and even various fundamentals related to adoption seem to establish that bitcoin is an ongoing asymmetric bet to the upside, so there are a variety of ways that governments might consider employing or promoting aspects of bitcoin without necessarily increasing their risk profile - but instead potentially cause their situations to be better, not only from and institutional/governmental perspective but also various ways that their citizens would likely end up having more (rather than fewer) options.
In essence, it seems that bitcoin increases rather than lessens options, and there are all kinds of variations in the ways that countries and/or banks might consider adding those kinds of options within their countries and/or maybe the ways that they interact between each other from the country, institutional and/or individual perspective.
This is true, but what if anyone of the countries listed eventually got to adopt bitcoin as a legal tender this should at least make some difference in their economy by reducing poverty rate and unemployment, i think bitcoin adoption should still make some meaningful impact even on the developing countries.
No, not really. Bitcoins don't grow on trees and they wont simply become available to the population the day after they adopt it as legal tender. Sure, you can make an airdrop similarly to what was done in El Salvador. But Bitcoin won't land you a job at that auto dealership across the road if there are no jobs available, or no auto dealership at all due to the overall state of the country.
One might argue that Bitcoin offers opportunities of remote work. Sure, that's true, but so does PayPal, WU, Skrill, freelancing sites, and many other ways to get paid in fiat. There is potential for Bitcoin in areas where people are unbanked, but not if they sleep in the dirt, use a rock for a pillow, and don't even have drinking water. Those poor souls have more important things to care about than a decentralized economy.
Huh?
I agree with part of your point that some countries might not have very many activities or production that is monetized, but even poor countries have developed economies that include monetary components, and even if they might not have as much monetary activities in comparison to more developed countries/economies, bitcoin is still designed to be able to help within a variety of circumstances.. and surely, it would likely help some segments of any society more than other segments, but still would not justify that bitcoin should not be considered even though there could be some concerns about "how much" to adopt or invest in bitcoin as a country rather than "whether" to invest in bitcoin as a country.
[edited out]
It's too bad that you either fail or refuse to use the word "bitcoin" at even one point in your post, even though the title of the thread mentions bitcoin, and even though the legal tender law in El Salvador was ONLY about bitcoin.
Regarding your chosen word "crypto" I don't really know what that is, but yeah, sure there are a bunch of shitcoin projects that are still likely hanging on the apron strings of whatever is done in bitcoin including having various interests in El Salvador and other poor countries (and people), too.
And, yeah sure there is a lot of confusion for a lot of folks to not know the difference between bitcoin and crypto, and hopefully your failure/refusal to use the word bitcoin in your post, TimeTeller, was an oversight (or maybe you did do it on purpose) rather than your actually not knowing what is bitcoin and unable to actually figure out how the focus of many of the serious (non-scam) financial institutional (and maybe even quasi-governmental) contenders is tending to be on bitcoin first (and bitcoin focused). .even though surely some serious and BIG financial institutions have also got diverted into various shitcoins too.. but hopefully, many of us in this forum are ready, willing and able to try to understand and appreciate how bitcoin is differentiated from various shitcoins and scam projects that are many times associated with folks who use the term "crypto" and not able to distinguish what is bitcoin, no?