If am not mistaken, El Salvador came second among countries that hold Bitcoin and made the balance public. The fact that Ukraine allowed donations through Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies shows the fact that the government is beginning to recognize Bitcoin as the trance border currency without the services of a third party. That being said for El Salvador to have held the total Bitcoin holding without selling any bits from it shows that even though El Salvador comes second to Ukraine in terms of countries' Bitcoin holding El Salvador also being the first country to adopt Bitcoin as a currency that will serve as an alternative to the centralized currency.
You may need to provide a link Piesel or some better explanation regarding both the timeline that you are talking about and perhaps more of the specifics regarding how you compare Ukraine to El Salvador in terms of a compare/contrast situation....
And as far as who is first, I am not sure whether it really matters that much, except that you seem to be bringing up information that is not really supported by facts in terms of some kind of comprehensive approach that Ukraine or any other country might have taken in regards to bitcoin. I recall in 2014 Japan made transacting in bitcoin legal, but they did not make it to be legal tender, as far as I recall.. and they also did not buy it for their treasuries or take other proactive measures like El Salvador did. My point is that countries have done all kinds of shit with bitcoin prior to El Salvador in 2021, but none of those approaches seemed to have been as comprehensive as El Salvador's approach.. at least, not so far.
As far as my recollection goes, Ukraine was all over the place in terms of various contradictory message in respects to bitcoin prior to 2021 and even in recent times, and surely there has been some contradictory statements coming out of Ukraine in recent times too.. even though there have been war desperation statements coming out of Ukraine also (in recent times).. and El Salvador came out with a more comprehensive approach in June 2021 that got implemented in September 2021.. and I will concede that surely all of these matters are moving targets in terms of either what any particular country/location is doing in terms of either promoting bitcoin through how bitcoin is designated or various investments that they make into bitcoin or allow their citizens to make into bitcoin and any restrictions that might be part of their approach, as well.
Hi, thanks for your corrections and demand for link to the claims, I must acknowledge your in-depth knowledge and analytical explanations to terms and worlds as regards to the topic of discussion. There is no doubt the fact that Ukraine have been on the offensive side of Bitcoin adoption and has not been friendly to Bitcoin-related laws and policies, but then ever since the war started Ukraine has benefited hugely from Bitcoin as various donations were made to support the country during the war. So that Bitcoin donated amount makes up for the country's high Bitcoin balance among countries such as El Salvador which have made Bitcoin a legal tender and already have millions of dollars country Treasury in Bitcoin.
I got the figure that placed Ukraine 1st among the other countries whose Bitcoin balances are made public from a link shared on this thread, I will scan back a little and I will share the link or screenshots.
Ok... Fair enough if you are wanting to merely refer to the size of the treasuries; however, I think that it remains a good practice to try to consider various countries for what they are doing, and even considering how verifiable some of the representations of facts happen to be. Every country seems to have issues regarding both how transparent they are and also whether they are representing some of the purported facts accurately.
Of course, there are also issues regarding context as well in terms of what might have moved them into their bitcoin accumulation strategies, and also down the road many of these countries are going to be facing potential transition of power issues to attempt to assure that country treasuries are not being raided - and it can be understandable why a country might not want to overly disclose some of its security measures - and frequently they can also create additional vulnerabilities when they might hold their coins with third-parties that might end up being influenced by foreign/international powers - which may not necessarily be for the good of the people - so transition of power and custody issues need to be taken with some grain of salt regarding whether proper balances are being taken with any of these countries who have their own contexts, country histories of corruption, and even disputations regarding legitimacy of power, which would also factor into the transition issues that could end up happen in the near future or might end up being delayed into the future.
I feel like I am rambling a bit, even though I am merely attempting to make the point that a variety of factors need to attempt to be appreciated about how various countries differ from one another, and each of us should be attempting to look at facts and minimize the amount that we end up coming off as if we are cheerleading for one country or another because even comparing bitcoin treasury sizes needs to be appreciated in the context of various other factors as well, such as GDP and maybe even considering some of the other kinds of reserves that a country might hold in foreign currencies, gold, and perhaps some other assets that the country might hold in terms of how self-sustaining the whole economy might be and including maybe considering kinds of production - exports/imports.
<...>
You probably saw it on
this site, where it states that Ukraine holds 46351 BTCs. Nevertheless, these sites do not necessarily contain homogenous information, and whilst the data for El Salvador is derived from sources that announce each BTC purchase made by the government (essentially @Bukele’s Twitter lacking anything better), the data for Ukraine is derived from
this source dated April 2021.
Back then, Ukrainian civil servants had to declare information on their properties, and as a result, 652 (out of more than 700K) civil servants declared having the said 46351 BTC at the time (pre-war, so things may have changed substantially). Viacheslav Mishalov, a City Council deputy from DNIpro stands out as a whale with over 18000 BTCs alone.
The details can be found here:
https://opendatabot.ua/en/analytics/bitcoin-2021bAs far as I can see, these declarations of tenancy are individual, and therefore I believe related to their private holdings. It is therefore not an amount that belongs to the government’s treasury, and if I’m right, buybitcoinworldwide’s BTC treasury listing should not be mixing-up government central treasures with something that is not, creating an unnecessary confusion.
Another good set of points, who's holding the BTC, and from when was the data collected... and also if we recognize that a war or invasion contributes towards a lot of chaos in terms of personal and governmental finances/productivity, it also contributes towards a lot of chaos in terms of accurate information.
