Topic: Class Conspiracy in Bitcoin Adoption (Read 393 times)

I think every country considers internal factors more and takes a complex approach. Since bitcoin flows into their country without a clear legal status, so many events have given rise to pro and contra opinions.
Since legalizing also means allowing use by all levels of society, there are a lot of new homework and assignments with this significant change.

I'm really happy to see such a small country take the risk and begin their adoption even though the big ones are in doubt. It's clear that they are willing to be the first to try it and also that doesn't bother them because if this gonna be prospered in the future, they are the ones who will gonna be successful first and also will be the first to have crypto-related businesses in their countries. As for the other hesitant countries, they are just right there, carefully looking at the result of this crypto adoption.

6 days ago, china courts rules that cryptocurrency will not be recognised as legal tender (money) but will be allowed to be traded/used as a virtual asset

thus china will start getting crypt friendly again
https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/15/china_crypto_asset_trading_case/
https://finbold.com/chinese-court-approves-crypto-trading-but-not-its-use-as-a-cash-substitute/

china and india are in the same boat now.. they recognise crypto as an asset people can trade, but dont want to see it as a common medium exchange used as legal tender for goods and services in local retail stores
yes in china people are allowed to own/hold/store bitcoin. and now trade it.
just cant spend it in local stores as if its the yuan

It is very true that the government of a particular country sometimes copies some viable or productive policies from its neighbors. It is also correct that if Nigeria invests in Bitcoin and reaps from the gains of price appreciation, other countries might invest in Bitcoin. But this perceived conspiracy theory about Bitcoin adoption by neighboring countries can not be said to be true because Bitcoin adoption strives in certain conditions.

Firstly, the governments of such countries must be flexible and open to innovation. If the government of neighboring countries is not open to new ideas and are against the status quo, they might not adopt Bitcoin.

Another important factor to consider before Bitcoin adoption is the availability of power supply and internet connections. Nigeria is more advanced in technology than Chad and Niger, hence they might not consider Bitcoin because they don't have the necessary facilities to make it strive in their country.

Colonial affiliation can also be another factor. Most countries in Africa depend on their former colonial masters which makes them to be controlled by the former. If the colonial master is not friendly with bitcoin, they would ensure that their dependence is also unfriendly to it. Failure to obey their orders might lead to the withdrawal of grants and loans.
  

This is not a matter of influence or anything, but this is a technological era, and it is undeniable that every country has a new government or a new government in a few years there must be a change of leader, that's where many changes in the system are presented to build the economy of a country, so that the country is not behind the times, the emergence of bitcoin is something we don't know what the future will be like Bitcoin for everyone or for all countries, at least we should know about it..

It's only because El Salvator's bitcoin investment hasn't returned a profit yet. That's why they are so skeptical of makking Bitcoin a legal tender since that means they'd have to acquire reserves of it as well.

You're making a good point. All other nations that are delaying the adoption of bitcoin are merely anticipating the fallout from what will occur to those that had not yet done so. Most often, it's due of their own fear or even greed. I'm not that confident that other nations will follow suit if any of these nations can use bitcoin to boost their economies to a level that is sustainable. Consider El Salvador as an example. El Salvador has made significant investments in bitcoin, and all of its neighbors are just waiting to see what will happen. After learning about bitcoin, I'm confident that Bukele is prepared to take the risk and knows what he's doing. He risk his countries wealth into risk, but after all life is about risk taking. At the end, many countries will learn from El Salvador. He put the wealth of his country at stake, but living involves taking risks. Later, many nations will actually learn from El Salvador.

Here is a map which shows the legality of Bitcoin around the world. It is obvious here that the large part of Europe is colored green, which means Bitcoin is legal--whatever that means in terms of specific regulatory policies and domestic laws pertaining to Bitcoin.


https://howmuch.net/articles/bitcoin-legality-around-the-world

In terms of Bitcoin ATMs, out of the top 10 countries in the world having the most numbers installed, 6 are from Europe. This must also mean adoption.^[1]

For now, let's forget about how Bitcoin is treated; whether it's used for payment or as a speculative asset or as a store of value or whatever. Suffice it to say that in terms of Bitcoin's recognition, Europe is very much in the frontline.

---

[1] https://coinatmradar.com/countries/

Since now many countries are doing politics with Bitcoin. If someone considers it positive, other contemporary countries are looking it negatively. In this concern America and China take such position. Above all, if you want to move forward thinking about the future, you need to take it positively. Now people are becoming modern. In my opinion, if a country accepts Bitcoin, then its neighboring countries can also accept it. As in Asia it has been approved in India while Pakistan and Bangladesh are also discussing it positively. Maybe they will support it too.

Yes, I agree with you but even the activities of the majority members in a state can be control by the authority, and also awareness also play a major role to the majorities. The neighbouring country activities on bitcoin can also influence the other country youth. Although every country control their economic resources but influence comes in when one is doing greatly.

Let's be clear first that they are buying Bitcoin not because they want to save their country or have a better economy by using cryptocurrencies which in this case is Bitcoin but it's to save their ass from the falling value of their own money.
So why would a neighboring country's government want that? It will be against their will especially in the "taxation" side.
No processing money, no usage, nothing comes in and out means chaos.
It's not that I am against it because I am doing the same, but I will not be a hypocrite to say I am doing it for the future of my country.
It's for my own future.

Thou Bitcoin is a risky investment, and every country has their economical strength. But Nigeria is indeed the largest black nation in the world, and the most populous country in Africa, of which other African countries look up to in terms of decision making and choice of action. So for me, I think if Nigeria finally legalized the use of Bitcoin, and make great income from it to the extent of developing the country drastically through the use of Bitcoin, I'm very sure other neighbouring countries will want to do such to. Because taking a look at El Salvador, this is a country bordered by both "Honduras" on the nortwest, "Guatemala" on the nortwest, of which thou these countries never legalized Bitcoin as a legal tender, but the activities of Bitcoin could be hardly felt these places, to the extent the mayor of a town in one of the neighbouring countries was given a Bitcoin mining device to start mining bitcoin



Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/cointelegraph.com/news/why-is-a-guatemalan-mayor-mining-bitcoin-tackling-fud-with-biogas-and-btc/amp

For that to happen passively, the accepting country needs to set an example first so that the neighboring countries can get some positive vibes out of it. It's not really that easy and if it would have been then trust me we had bitcoin on the go applications everywhere. Sadly we dont have it. Examples already exists such as EL Salvador and the government continues to buy more and more bitcoins with public fundings. Honestly their peeps are not as happy as they should have been because its not working out properly. That's a big issue with bitcoin adoption. The infra restricts the use case while less knowledge associated with the bitcoin is keeping peeps away from its usage.

that also constitute the reasons but their mentalities still remains stereotype such that they believed bitcoin is the main perpetrator to performing crime and digital  fraudulency.


if you look at the objectives to the creation of bitcoin by Satoshi, it was majorly targeted on the people and not government, once you make a good economy advantage in using bitcoin then this can as well relate to other people also in taking same benefits from using bitcoin thereby improving better lives without involving government


every country has it own economy obligation and it will not do well when working by other people's choice to work same way for you, if they are all adopting bitcoin then it should be base on their research and adequate preparedness for the adoption and not just following the crowd, it may cost alot of regret if they never see the opportunity first before jumping into the adoption, remember everything has it own risk.

Why would that be the case just because Nigeria was first? Of other neighboring countries find out that they can take advantage of Bitcoin, they would jump in — regardless if they were first or last.

Excellent point, OP. However, the varied perspectives that individuals and governments have on cryptocurrencies often do not ensure their widespread adoption. Any ruling party or individuals that feel the need to invest in cryptocurrencies for profit or other reasons will take the bull by the horns and slay it once and for all. Your point that other neighboring nations will be interested in bitcoin is not necessarily true because they might not understand how the bitcoin market operates and may not benefit in the same way that other nation did when they entered it. It has to do with awareness and comprehension of how different people perceive it.

Not sure about this conspiracy though, I mean countries that go against bitcoin as authoritative government because they don't want to give control to the people. So it's hard to see them suddenly changing their stance just because their neighboring countries is in BTC. So for me it's really who is the sitting President or government right now, if by chance the next Bukele lost or his term as President of El Salvador expire and then the next government is against crypto or bitcoin, then maybe we will see no longer the kind of adoption in their country.

It must be a very poor consipracy then because nobody is even adhering to it at large.

The reason why most group efforts fail is because of the dwindling or complete cessation of activities by the majority of its members.

Where do you get that from? There are some countries where adoption will be higher but I can assure you that adoption in most European countries is minimal. And even less for the purposes of day-to-day payments. Most people buy bitcoin to speculate, but there are hardly any shops where you can pay with bitcoin and even fewer people who pay in the few shops where you can.

The issue here is thinking that BTC adoption will somehow generate economic prosperity and well-being. That simply is not true. It can lead to more financial independence for individuals, but this whol craze that's been going on with countries buying BTC makes no difference in their overall economic standard. Adoption means the government passing a law that will make crypto easier to use for individuals (be it integration with banks, less paperwork, more ATMs, or more business accepting crypto as payment...). The biggest conspiracy is trying to make everyone think that BTC adoption will solve years upon years of economic neglect.