Yes.. remittances might need to be self-reported.. and that might not be reliable.. but if there is a shrinkage in the remittances services, then maybe some of those people are using bitcoin to remit.
Sure each of them likely put upwards price pressures on bitcoin for different reasons... various forms of legalization and bitcoin recognition could also lead to other governments going down similar paths... and so surely we could talk about government by government acceptance of bitcoin, and sometimes there are also countervailing measures happening simultaneously, including the recent (likely unlawful and overreaching and oppressive) mandate in the USA that miners have to fill out an invasive survey about various details of their operations...so even within various administrations there can be a lot of contradictions, even though it seems that a clear creation of a legal tender law should be considered somewhat unambiguous in terms of welcoming bitcoin at the transactional and also the direct holdings level.. yet even ETF approval is not directly acknowledging anything about direct holding of bitcoin, even though bitcoin's value does come from abilities to directly hold it and transact with it without getting permission of governments and/or any third parties...so the level of tension in regards to rights involving directly holding bitcoin are not unambiguous and likely contributing to many folks not recognizing and appreciating a lot of bitcoin's power comes through the various direct holding mechanisms... even if sometimes there also might be interactions with custodians and other kinds of third party players who may or may not put obstacles in the ways to directly hold and/or transact with dee cornz..