I think one of the reasons many countries around the world do not want to make Bitcoin legal tender is because they wouldn't be able to ask for capital gains tax from an appreciating asset compared to their local currency.
Bitcoin itself is more than suitable to become legal tender though, specially through Lightning. El Salvador seems to be working quite well with it as legal tender.
Topic: Is Bitcoin suitable to become legal tender? (Read 515 times)
Recently El Salvador adopted Bitcoin as legal tender. Some sources report that other Latin-American countries are planning to follow suit [1]. I personally feel that Bitcoin is not suitable currency for most types of countries that (potentially) want to adopt it. The success or failure of some countries to adopt any form of cryptocurrency will no doubt have big implications for others to follow.
The main reason I made this post is not to bash Bitcoin but so that others here could potentially shine light to the flaws in my reasoning.
First off I don´t think that El Salvador or others have the necessary infrastructure present to support transactions in crypto. Research shows that the precent of population using internet in El Salvador is roughly 30-40% [2]. This obviously means that 60-70% don´t have access to necessary prerequisite for crypto. Likewise for crypto to function as a useful legal tender, a country needs to have high level of internet availability. This is not likely the case for most countries looking to adopt it.
Secondly I don´t think that most countries have the necessary financial education to support Bitcoin as legal tender. There are some statistics that show that a shockingly small number of people even in developed countries have the necessary skill-set to even keep a balanced budget [3]. As an investment option crypto is risky. I believe I´ve seen it said on this very forum that most of crypto traders lose money. As a currency it is definitely harder to plan around than regular money specially due to Bitcoins volaitility.
Thirdly and related to second point is the fact that trading in Bitcoin can be more prone to scammers due to the fully digital nature of the currency and also due to the fact that this currency does not have a safety net provided (albeit at times poorly) by regular banks. I think that safety measures taken by some people in this forum shows nicely how well aware in cyber security one must be to feel safe around crypto. I myself have probably had at least three mini-strokes fearing that I might have sent a substantial amount of money to a wrong address. It´s a problem that is not as substantial with FIAT currencies.
So why is all this important? One can easily say that there is no harm if people have the option to either use crypto as currency but also the freedom to not use it if they so choose. I believe that at least for a time being we will be hearing bad news from El Salvadors crypto experiment. By that I mean of people losing their savings, being scammed out of money and generally having the infrastructure fail. We have one such example already [4]. This will likely create caution for other trying to follow in El Salvadors footsteps. This might have devastating implications for crypto however. Looking back in time people still bring out Chernobyl to this day to justify not using nuclear energy.
[1] https://theconversation.com/bitcoin-is-now-legal-tender-in-el-salvador-heres-what-that-means-167099
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1055468/internet-penetration-el-salvador/
[3] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/3-financial-literacy-statistics-that-need-to-change-in-2021-301246352.html
[4] https://www.reuters.com/technology/el-salvadors-bitcoin-digital-wallet-beset-by-technical-glitches-2021-09-10/
The main reason I made this post is not to bash Bitcoin but so that others here could potentially shine light to the flaws in my reasoning.
First off I don´t think that El Salvador or others have the necessary infrastructure present to support transactions in crypto. Research shows that the precent of population using internet in El Salvador is roughly 30-40% [2]. This obviously means that 60-70% don´t have access to necessary prerequisite for crypto. Likewise for crypto to function as a useful legal tender, a country needs to have high level of internet availability. This is not likely the case for most countries looking to adopt it.
Secondly I don´t think that most countries have the necessary financial education to support Bitcoin as legal tender. There are some statistics that show that a shockingly small number of people even in developed countries have the necessary skill-set to even keep a balanced budget [3]. As an investment option crypto is risky. I believe I´ve seen it said on this very forum that most of crypto traders lose money. As a currency it is definitely harder to plan around than regular money specially due to Bitcoins volaitility.
Thirdly and related to second point is the fact that trading in Bitcoin can be more prone to scammers due to the fully digital nature of the currency and also due to the fact that this currency does not have a safety net provided (albeit at times poorly) by regular banks. I think that safety measures taken by some people in this forum shows nicely how well aware in cyber security one must be to feel safe around crypto. I myself have probably had at least three mini-strokes fearing that I might have sent a substantial amount of money to a wrong address. It´s a problem that is not as substantial with FIAT currencies.
So why is all this important? One can easily say that there is no harm if people have the option to either use crypto as currency but also the freedom to not use it if they so choose. I believe that at least for a time being we will be hearing bad news from El Salvadors crypto experiment. By that I mean of people losing their savings, being scammed out of money and generally having the infrastructure fail. We have one such example already [4]. This will likely create caution for other trying to follow in El Salvadors footsteps. This might have devastating implications for crypto however. Looking back in time people still bring out Chernobyl to this day to justify not using nuclear energy.
[1] https://theconversation.com/bitcoin-is-now-legal-tender-in-el-salvador-heres-what-that-means-167099
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1055468/internet-penetration-el-salvador/
[3] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/3-financial-literacy-statistics-that-need-to-change-in-2021-301246352.html
[4] https://www.reuters.com/technology/el-salvadors-bitcoin-digital-wallet-beset-by-technical-glitches-2021-09-10/
I think bitcoin is okay to be a legal tender in one's country. Bitcoin being a legal tender doesn't necessarily mean that the country will abandon its local currency and just use bitcoin for everything. It's just another form of payment that people have as an alternative if ever they don't want to use fiat money. It's not really mandatory to use it, it's still up to the citizens if they want to use it or not. I think El Salvador's government put up with this because of the existing crypto users in their country and because they have seen the potential of crypto.
We can prevent bad situations to happen such as being scammed if only people would be more wary and cautious of who to trust and what sites or platforms to engage with. In fiat money, scamming also happens. Don't put it like being scammed just occurs in crypto. It can happen anywhere, anytime, and to anyone who isn't cautious enough to secure their funds. We can't really babysit and spoonfed everyone, do we? We can give out warnings and educate them and the rest is up to the owner of the wallet. You must secure your own assets and funds. You shouldn't let anyone look after it. You are in charge and you are responsible for your assets, not other people.
All of these speculative reasons why Bitcoin might not be a good idea to be adopted by a country can be analyzed maybe two years after El Salvador made it as a legal tender of the country. I think that by then we can see the advantages and disadvantages played within the country and its people. And I am looking forward to that anniversary in El Salvador so we can assess what eventually happened. Right now, it is too early to say anything with this El Salvador experiment...though of course I am looking forward to see it successfully adopted by the people of El Salvador but you know as in anything there will always be problems and bottlenecks along the way.
There is no doubt that only by using Bitcoin as legal tender can we gain true sovereignty and stand up to speak.
Well they have already taken the decision, going back on it now wouldn’t be a good thing for them to do.
Rather they should look for a way to improve things in that country. That there is a less percentage of internet users doesn’t mean that bitcoin cannot function there, it can function there and people can make use of it for transaction as long as they have what it takes to make use of it.
As for those who don’t have it yet, they can continue to make use of Fiat. Making bitcoin a legal tender is not really necessary, and personally I don’t see any much impact that’s going to make at all, it can just be a legal asset that anyone can be free to use and nothing much here.
Rather they should look for a way to improve things in that country. That there is a less percentage of internet users doesn’t mean that bitcoin cannot function there, it can function there and people can make use of it for transaction as long as they have what it takes to make use of it.
As for those who don’t have it yet, they can continue to make use of Fiat. Making bitcoin a legal tender is not really necessary, and personally I don’t see any much impact that’s going to make at all, it can just be a legal asset that anyone can be free to use and nothing much here.
I don't see any harm using bitcoin as a legal tender besides the fact that bitcoin might've come from illegal activities and was used so they can disposed of it immediately. Other than that, I don't think that there's nothing bad having bitcoin as a legal tender.
I share the same thoughts. When we mean by 'legal tender' it does not necessarily mean that it should be the universal accepted form of payment in the country. It just requires that our respective banks recognize it as an alternative mode of payment in the payment of debts where you can compel a person to accept such.
Bitcoin, as a legal tender, can be very promising but what needs to be balanced is its volatility since it can be prejudicial to the person accepting it. But as a form of alternative payment, I do agree that it would bring more benefits than harm to the community.
It could be a legal tender in the country as long as the government does not have a problem using bitcoin as a legal tender. Perhaps Bitcoin will be a legal tender in the country with a better internet connection as the internet will be the main factor in using crypto. While the other developed country can use bitcoin as their investment, and as time goes by, their people can use bitcoin as another payment system when everything is ready.
i dont know but recent news says that some ATM in el savador destroyed by anti - Bitcoin,
rather than make bitcoin legal tender like elsavador as second money
it would be great as an asset but make stable coin legal as fiat do
so crypto other than stable considering as an asset but stable coin for payment
rather than make bitcoin legal tender like elsavador as second money
it would be great as an asset but make stable coin legal as fiat do
so crypto other than stable considering as an asset but stable coin for payment
Every country has its own laws and they have the right to regulate their country with things that have never been tried by other countries, such as El Salvador which is currently legal to use bitcoin as their currency and I believe they have made rules that can be accepted by the wider community although some of them must first explore how to use digital currencies, If El Salvador can fully use bitcoin as a legitimate means of payment and there are no problems whatsoever then I'm sure other countries will definitely follow suit.
Bitcoin cannot be used as legal tender. Its price instability is risky, and its decentralization is difficult to control. Bitcoin will not be guaranteed by the government like fiat currency, it is insecure. Bitcoin users are a minority, and many people do not understand it but prefer to use national fiat currency.
price volatility makes bitcoin in some countries unsuitable for us to make as a legal currency, maybe that's the reason some countries refuse to accept bitcoin as a legal currency, and the government in my country never wants to accept bitcoin as a legal tender, because in my country there are still very many people who do not understand about bitcoin.. 
Op wrote a well-grounded set of points on suitability of Bitcoin as a legal tender. However, I'd like to contest some of those points, while also adding one point that supports the op's argument. The point I want to add is that Bitcoin is simply not scalable enough to be adopted as a legal tender, and it's going to become increasingly more problematic with the growth of adoption. The Lightning network and other suggested solutions can only do so much to improve the situation, but cannot fully solve the problem. That being said, I want to address the three arguments by the op. First, perhaps adopting Bitcoin will help encourage the usage of the Internet and bring new resources to ensure that the Internet is more widely available in El Salvador. Also, AFAIK, El Salvador still uses the USD as their legal tender and individuals aren't forced to use Bitcoin instead.
As for financial literacy and reasonable investments, people suffer from scams a lot when Bitcoin is not around as well, investing in Ponzi schemes and other things, and I'm not sure that crypto adoption increases the number of victims.
As for financial literacy and reasonable investments, people suffer from scams a lot when Bitcoin is not around as well, investing in Ponzi schemes and other things, and I'm not sure that crypto adoption increases the number of victims.
With bitcoins volatility it is hard to accept it for now as a legal tender. But if you are not willing to invest on it and will sell it too if gained then it is also a good choice for you. Having a multiple option will result to a good decision.
I think the most suitable is not legal currency, but the most suitable is anchor currency. Just like the US dollar, it anchors the fiat currencies of all countries.
I'm not really sure about this. Bitcoin was not made for becoming the legal tender of any country actually. It just aimed to give the freedom of making peer-to-peer transactions and trading without the need of a bank. In this case, I wouldn't be very sad if Bitcoin is not used as the legal tender of any country. It might be suitable for developing and underdeveloped countries but we don't know whether they will do fine in the future also.
Bitcoin cannot be used as legal tender. Its price instability is risky, and its decentralization is difficult to control. Bitcoin will not be guaranteed by the government like fiat currency, it is insecure. Bitcoin users are a minority, and many people do not understand it but prefer to use national fiat currency.
Bitcoin becoming legal currency does not mean that the original national legal currency disappears, and the two can coexist and use.
It has now entered the digital age and the trend of digital currency is emerging. Bitcoin can be used freely by citizens. Many countries and institutions are also considering using it. It is inevitable that Bitcoin will become legal currency in the future.
It has now entered the digital age and the trend of digital currency is emerging. Bitcoin can be used freely by citizens. Many countries and institutions are also considering using it. It is inevitable that Bitcoin will become legal currency in the future.
I think so, I mean what does a legal tender do? It's just a title to say that they acknowledge something can be a medium of exchange, so I don't think that we should have any qualms with bitcoin becoming a legal tender.
Yes but it becomes more complex if a country annouce that they have legalize it as a legal tender, if the occupants of a country are not smart enough to handle bitcoin owning maybe they will get mad to their government if the price of bitcoin is going drop so big.
So before a country legalize bitcoin tender, they have to make sure their people are ready for it. Maybe it could be work on developed countries
Yes it's suitable, legal tender just means that it's recognized by the legal system for paying your transactions and bitcoin has been used for that so I really don't see how bitcoin's not suitable to have the title of legal tender, it gives the public the option on how to pay for their transactions.
Adopting bitcoin as a legal tender will never bring negative impact, its even more on positive side because the citizens will definitely have the full freedom to use bitcoin in as much as they want. And since the world is alreaday in its digital age, the currency should also go along with it. This does not mean that we will eliminate the fiat completely but it will be a step by step process. Maybe if all the individuals can already cope up with the changes in currency adoption and start to adjust, then bitcoin will definitely be a good currency. Its even better because it has no inflation in it but only deflation instead. 
i think its not possible for bitcoin to become the international legal tender, because bitcoin's value is so high right now and many countries don't have enough resources to compensate for the value of bitcoin, meaning the international trade will crash because only the rich countries can buy goods and have the asset to be globally competitive in the economic aspect
Anything can happen in crypto. Becoming a legal tender has been done by El Salvador. But they are in polemic at the moment. It was natural that many problems would arise, so they would come up with a solution. This is the beginning I'm sure if they are able to develop and succeed with bitcoin other countries will follow it.But in the near term, I don't think many countries will legalize it as a means of payment. Although I believe the blockchain network will become more congested and as a side effect transaction fees will be expensive and time consuming. Besides that at this time, humans are in a shift, after the golden generation has power in government I think policies will change a lot, including the use of bitcoin as a means of payment.
First off I don´t think that El Salvador or others have the necessary infrastructure present to support transactions in crypto.
Secondly I don´t think that most countries have the necessary financial education to support Bitcoin as legal tender.
Thirdly and related to second point is the fact that trading in Bitcoin can be more prone to scammers due to the fully digital nature of the currency
Secondly I don´t think that most countries have the necessary financial education to support Bitcoin as legal tender.
Thirdly and related to second point is the fact that trading in Bitcoin can be more prone to scammers due to the fully digital nature of the currency
1 Is a slowdown, but in El Salvador they have installed hundreds of ATMs for this transition, besides Starlink seems to be finally becoming available so this point is becoming nil.
2 Is irrelevant to being a legal tender. Trading is not something common people need to do.
You don't need "financial education" to hold your money, all you need to learn is how to keep it safe (write down the seed words in a piece of paper, etc).
3 Scammers were not invented by Bitcoin or the Internet. If a stranger is asking you for money (under whatever excuse) and you give it, there is your problem.
These are low excuses with political motivation, rather than Bitcoin you want to attack the current politicians in power, without looking at the big picture. This goes way beyond Bukele and their party, if you have anything against them ask the other two parties why they didn't do it. It is too late now and when you oppose Bitcoin you can only make a fool of yourself.
By adopting Bitcoin El Salvador is removing their current and future politicians and banksters from ever being able to manipulate money again, it of course does this to the foreign politicians and bankers of the foreign fiat coin also currently in use there.
Why does the Frente want their own fiat? So they can repeat another bolivar (current worst hyperinflation on Earth). And Arena, probably the same thing. Funny how those two supposedly opposite parties converge against Bitcoin. Its good for them to be against it, it means its good.
Jump to: