Yep.. various ways to roll over debt happen all the time.. and the $21 million question might be whether they are being deceptive in terms of whether their debt is in getting into a more healthy state, a less healthy state or staying the same.
A presumption is that El Salvador is getting their debt into a more manageable and less dependent status... .. and surely there can be some questions in regards to whether those kinds of claims or inferences can reasonably be made based on actual known facts?
And from 800 we're down to 54!
Is that better or worse? I recognize that you are hinging on the "paid in full" claim as if that might be deceptive to say that it was paid in full when it was actually just rolled over.
Isn't he correct to assert that the claims that El Salvador was going to default incorrect? That seems to be a pretty BIG deal, no? So far, they did not default, even though many of the big players were proclaiming that they were going to default and also downgrading and denigrating their credit rating (worthiness). That seems like a pretty big deal in terms of information warfare, to the extent information warfare is going on in these circumstances.
Don't trust, verify my ass!
I kind of agree with you on the point of having some kind of verifiability that El Salvador owns the BTC that they claim to own, but I also understand aspects of not necessarily disclosing the particulars... there are a lot of current practices in which finances are NOT very open, and sure governments are supposed to be more open because they are supposed to be accountable to the people of whom they are supposed to represent, yet I am not sure what good comes out of attempting to cause Bukele and the El Salvador government to be MORE open than other governments.. when we already should realize and appreciate that they are engaging in a kind of investment (into BTC) and a public posture in regards to investing into BTC that status quo PTB financial and governmental institution (and the status quo rich) are largely hostile to such investments and attempts at self-sovereignty that El Salvador is making and that there have been institutions in place for more than 50 years that have been hostile to self-sovereignty of smaller governments and various other smaller players including within western countries in which there are ongoing desires to suppress communities from their abilities to be self-sovereign... not that we can necessarily completely divorce ourselves from status quo institutions - or even status quo systems without a violent revolution, and bitcoin seems to be one of the ways in which less violence may well be able to take place in order to return some levels of self-sovereignty.. in the event that we might be able to have some faith that Bukele is a good actor and is not going to rug-pull the whole situation.. which is seeming to be the presumptions that you want to make stompix?
Have you used any bitcoins funds excluding the 30$ airdrop during this year? Have you used your airdrop money?
The simple difference between those percentages would tell more than any other question could do!
**note: this response fixes the missing bracket in your above quotes stompix.. in order to clarify what was your response and what was DdmrDdmr's.
Frequently we see surveys that are greatly inadequate in the ways that they ask questions and even which questions they ask.. so cannot really disagree with you about those kinds of concerns stompix. We know that sometimes proclaimed neutral survey takers are not as neutral as they are striving to present themselves, and surely governmental and/or public entities might want to attempt to be more open, but sometimes they won't release raw data to the public..... .. For sure, we know that there are various forms of information sharing on the internet that are more free than they have been historically, but people still get concerned about NOT being able to speak freely on certain topics.. whether it might be something like twitter, or even a forum like this... .. .. We might know that sometimes there are fears about allowing information to spread too freely because sometimes the information might not be true and then also the public might not be able to discern true information from untrue information.... so surely, dynamics of the release of poll data has these kinds of concerns, and maybe even concerns about which questions to ask and whether the poll taker wants to know that information.. or there might be some rationale in which I agree with you, if you are already spending the time, money and energies to take the poll, then what's wrong with including a couple more clarifying questions? Even some of the arm-chair criticizing that guys/gals like you and I do on the interwebs could end up motivating some folks who are involved in poll creation to become more inquisitive, and inspire journalists to ask the more probing questions or to spend money on on the ground investigations - which sometimes is not being done these days either.. who's going to pay them to send someone into probe? People gotta get paid for their attempts at "investigative journalism," no? Sure some will do it for free. .but at some point, they also start to get hungry, need to pay for lodging and transportation too... cover their costs.