Another thing in regards to position size, maybe it is the case that they are ONLY able to really put 1% to 5% of their countries investment portfolio into bitcoin kinds of building, and maybe their country is in such a disarray that they might not even be in a position to put more than 1% of their investment portfolio into bitcoin or bitcoin-related (bitcoin-focused) projects because they have to deal with getting their own house in order prior to being more aggressive in their bitcoin approach (so that they don't devolve into gambling and/or overdoing it), and so they need to assess their own situation in order to make sure that their position size does not end up contributing to their getting taken out of the bitcoin game (investment) because they had overdone it rather than being able to stick through the rough times, as you already pointed out, @slapper.
You have pointed out a reasonable factor that could have influenced the CAR government choice to discontinue Bitcoin usage. Additionally, It is possible that CAR government were unable to readjust their position of Bitcoin holding due to financial limitations. Additionally, the presence of inadequate infrastructure and lack of Bitcoin education also likely played substantial roles. Considering that only 10% of the country's population has internet access and relatively low level of social media engagement, a vital platform for spreading awareness about Bitcoin.
It is important to recognize that, despite the challenges, African nations represent most fertile grounds for Bitcoin initiation and advancement.
https://finserving.com/cryptocurrency/why-did-bitcoin-as-legal-tender-fail-in-central-african-republicThose seem to be different reasons than what I tried to say...
I was largely trying to say that it is a matter of position size and moderation rather than pushing too much too soon.. so there is no reason for CAR to be a failure except that they were likely gambling rather than engaging in an attempt at a prudent investment strategy... the same with individuals who get into bitcoin without an adequate view of their timeline and attempt to invest in a way that is gradually building up the bitcoin position over several years, and perhaps several cycles if your finances might already be on shaky grounds, then you have to build your various finances while you are investing in bitcoin... so if someone, some institution or some government recks themselves from the way that they invested in bitcoin, then one of the ways to recovery is to start back up more slowly and with a smaller position size and maybe even expand the investment time horizon from 4-10 years and start to plan out 10-20 years or more.. which may well continue to mean building and growing in bitcoin small in order NOT to overdo it and ONLY with cash that you can afford to lose... but still nothing wrong with being somewhat aggressive in your investment as long as you do not over do it..
Every person, institution and/or government has a variety of defects, so both you, Sayeds56, and that article seem to want to blame CAR's defects for their failure to be successful in bitcoin, and of course, they have defects just like we all have defects, so maybe in stead of buying $100s of millions in bitcoin, just start out with 1 bitcoin a day or 5 bitcoin a week more something more modest and manageable, and perhaps later on, then work their way up to higher amounts, after getting their shit together.
What you've explained is educative and clever enough and could be used by the serious and wise government, and even some of the CAR's financial institutions and citizens. But the question is whether the CAR government is wise enough, I guess not. It was a welcome development in April when the CAR government announced this legal tender adoption after it was voted for in a unanimous manner by the parliament. Nonetheless, their exclusion of the Bank of Central African States (BEAC) from it was my first doubt if they knew what they were doing as there should have been a wider consultation by every stakeholder since they are not in a banana republic. Africans like to do things anyhow, which is one of the reasons they are in their current position, not always following the right procedures is an issue on its own, thinking you know it all and do it as you like. Doing things rightly is what matters, but I doubt it in CAR judging by their antecedents. BEAC and experts' involvement would have helped in charting the pros and cons as this is a legal tender we are talking about. No wonder two of their ex-prime ministers frowned at BEAC exclusion and called it "a serious offence."
One thing about African countries is that they are not always wise, they act before they think. How I see this is deeper than Bitcoin and what we see on the surface. The country is blessed with so many mineral resources, they have Copper, Diamond, Graphite, Gold, Uranium, Iron ore, Manganese, Tin and more than 10 extra mineral resources with good farmlands and a small population that should have encouraged the effect of the resources to go around, but are still poor. Even for their rich Gold, Uranium and Diamond only, they should have been financially buoyant, but corruption, selfishness and foolishness have kept them where they are. Bitcoin can't make any difference here, except for cross-border payment and some literate among them will be rich with the investment, but will not go round. A huge percentage of the people in the country are illiterate, and many of those who are literate might not even adopt Bitcoin despite the government's approval.
These are some of the challenges I see. The news and the initiative of Bitcoin adoption as legal tender is very good on its own but I don't have trust in the CAR government to be wise enough to come up with a plan that will make the positive impact of Bitcoin felt by the country and its citizens. I trust El Salvador than them.