Topic: Thoughts about the person renting an apartment with Bitcoin in Argentina (Read 281 times)

What if he requires using the monthly payment for his upkeep, checks and balances etc? What if he demands for repairs of one of his houses with immediate effect?  I'd say, unless he's not always in need of those cash, he could stake them sats.
Honestly! The news carries that they made a transaction with Bitcoin, but reading through, you gotta quickly understand what zher motive was. 100 USDt might equate exactly the same value as 0.0015 bitcoin, but that doesn't make it Bitcoin itself.

I agree with the first sentence. Milei has quite contradictory political positions in many fields. For example, he supports free markets and competition, but has no problems with monopolies. WTF? In general I think he has some interesting ideas but is not the adequate person to lead a country.

In the case of crypto regulation his stance can however be explained a bit. Argentina is constantly in danger to get added to the "grey list" of FATF, and thus the government proceeded to regulate exchanges in simlar ways to other countries. However, the regulation is a bit less strict than for example in the US. There is for example no obligation for exchanges outside of Argentina to obey the country's regulations if they want to offer services to Argentine customers, with the exception on them being directed directly to Argentinians (e.g. with an Argentine website or domain or an official ARS fiat ramp). There is also an exception for small exchanges. So I think in general, taking into account the FATF pressure, the regulation wasn't excessively hard, although of course the government could also have been bolder.

Nope, this is already a week old I also think it shouldn't be overestimated. The meeting was centered around collaboration agreements and regulations. And Milei isn't a supporter of "legal tenders", he wants a free competition of payment means (and the concept of legal tender is the opposite if you're forced to accept a single currency).

But in this case, the two parties did it with a third party involved instead of them two agreeing on their terms and exchanging bitcoins directly. IMO it kind of defeats the purpose of being able to pay directly with bitcoins because you still need a centralized exchange in 'facilitating' the whole thing. I think that this is just a ploy to promote the crypto exchange platform and not really about a person renting an apartment with bitcoin. They just used this story to highlight how could they be used as a facilitator when in fact, the landlord and the tenant could just straight up do the whole thing with themselves.


Apparently, this does not make bitcoin what it should be. You can always send and receive bitcoins without the need for a third-party facilitator.

Well, this time around, some people seem to have forgotten the normal per-per sending of Bitcoin without the involvement of a third-party exchange. I could be wrong, though, because the second guess that is running through my mind is that those people might just be seeking attention and don't seem to have a proper knowledge of it all. If perhaps the house owner wanted to accept Bitcoin payments, then he should have just stated a particular fraction of Bitcoin to be paid by the tenant, and that's the fraction that will have to pay every year. He will benefit more because of volatility. Also, the tenant who wanted to rent the house and pay with Bitcoin may not necessarily be an old investor of Bitcoin; maybe he was just someone who wanted to do something different and make a name for himself. If he was an old investor, then he should have some Bitcoin in his wallet and would have just paid directly from his self custodian wallet.

A very valid point made you will be exposing your privacy and identity and and I don't think is smart to be spending something of value for a rent. I will rather keep my self unknown and pay with fiat. Becaue what if bitcoin is in bad condition and you expect me to pay with my bitcoin. To aviod a lot of things just pay with cash and their won't be any attention drawn to your self  and people will have various reasons why they spend their bitcoin. Since it also a legal tender in some countries so people might use it as an exchange to money. And since its personal decision. Because their are people that use it various things even give to charity. So what anyone do with their bitcoin concerns them but privacy matters a lot.



When it comes to Bitcoin, you should take your privacy seriously. It's better to be known for something else than being engaged with bitcoin or having access to your wallet, as this can lead to tracking of your transactions and reveal your anonymity. And I believe the landlord accepted Bitcoin. Even in legal tender scenarios, I prefer to convert my bitcoin to cash rather than spending it directly. For example, if I needed to pay house rent, I would plan ahead of time and avoid spending my Bitcoin. I believe Bitcoin is solely meant to be used for profit, not spending. With any genuine cause, it remains a personal choice.

U feel like Milei is greatly overestimated by bitcoiners. AFAIK he supports FATF, which is an nonelected private organization that tries to enforce its monetary rules on other countries and is clearly anti-bitcoin and against freedom of transaction and privacy. On one hand he's for bitcoin and freedom, on the other he enforces KYC rules and wants people's wallets to be assigned to real identities.
As for renting apartments it's a great idea because bitcoin is made for these larger transactions, where you have to pay a few hundred dollars (or in these case pesos) at once. IMO car dealerships should all accept bitcoin because those are one of the largest one time transactions people make.

If this idea of paying in Bitcoin works the way the op described, I agree that it's a missed opportunity to truly adopt Bitcoin. A centralized platform is one problem, and the USDT, while historically stable, always poses a risk of destabilization. But, on a positive note, it could be the first step toward adoption of Bitcoin, and maybe the situation will improve in the future, especially considering how determined the current president of Argentina is to foster economic growth, abolish the central bank, etc.

JUST IN: 🇦🇷🇸🇻 Government officials in Argentina met with their counterparts in El Salvador to discuss adopting cryptocurrencies similar to how they have done under the Bukele presidency with #Bitcoin   .
Details
The two groups “exchanged concepts about the growth of the use of cryptocurrencies in economies in general, and in particular exchanged details of the Salvadoran case […] we want to strengthen ties with the Republic of El Salvador and therefore, we are going to explore the possibility of signing collaboration agreements with them.”

So, it is priced in USDT, but the landlord receives Bitcoin.

Yes, there is an exchange involved. It could be better, but it's still some starting point.

In the article they mentioned that both were users of the exchange, so maybe they wanted to minimize fees and just trade in the same platform (which is not really moving BTC on the chain by the way).

USDT is not Bitcoin, it is a Stable Alt coin and just another of the wannabe "GovCoins" that are pegged for stability to something else.

I also see that it is using a third party payment processor, so it is not even a "pure" Crypto currency payment.

Nah..   try again.

Quite interesting details. I think I share the doubts about that one being really a "freely celebrated" contract.

The second part of the contract can be explained though, at least a bit. You need a reference price for that kind of contract, and using a single CEX is maybe the most simple way to do that. Otherwise there may be disputes about the "correct" weighting of the prices on different exchanges, and AFAIK there is no company publishing really an "ARS reference price" and even less an "Argentina USDT reference price" for Bitcoin. So if both parties had just an account at Fiwind (that's written in the Pagina12 article) then this may have been the most convenient way for them, although I definitely think there are strong signs that there was some sponsorship deal or so.

Explaining why they used USDT instead of USD is a bit harder. Perhaps the tenant wanted to (at least sometimes) pay in USDT instead of ARS. Or Fiwind doesn't have an USD/BTC pair but only an USDT/BTC pair. The landlord probably didn't want ARS nor USD but Bitcoins.

100 USD by the way isn't a totally uncommon price in Argentina for a small apartment in a poorer part of a city. Rosario isn't an expensive city, it has some problems with crime.

The fluctuating price of cryptocurrency is a consideration for some who do not want to make Bitcoin legal tender. But I don't have a specific argument to justify whether price fluctuations are really the reason they are considering making Bitcoin legal tender.
If we refer to El Salvador's great decision, what I know is that they do not force their citizens to use Bitcoin as a means of payment, they provide convenience and freedom between Bitcoin and using fiat currency.

Making Bitcoin a means of payment provides good opportunities in the investment field.
For me, I do not require the government to make Bitcoin a means of payment if the government is not ready for various considerations. However, making it an alternative provides quite good opportunities for the business world.

I agree with you since it’s very rare for an apartment to not ask for a specific identification or documents to prove their own identity. One who is too secretive and private would be suspicious but if you plan on using bitcoin in argentina to rent then it’s probably implied that you don’t care as much about decentralization or privacy or maybe it’s just something you are going to need to sacrifice.

     This is actually good news, and I agree with what Milae said that the bank is the real scam, in which it is really true that the depositor trusts the bank, and yet in the end, the trust suddenly freezes our account just because we deposited a large amount in their bank.

     If that's why Bitcoin has become the real answer for people who have an interest in having it, then that incident is not new because there are other countries that are doing
something similar in that regard.

I was one of those who celebrated this news the first time it was published on the internet. I think that this topic has thrown in more light and created a solid understanding of what it actually is. I have no problem with the process of exchange to protect the value of the asset against market force, the only problem I have right here with it is the government making it mandatory for he citizens to use that one exchange for it. In my estimation it reeks of autocratic governance  and it is absolutely not ok. Maybe that is their own small measure to regulate it crypto. However, what they did not consider is that privacy of their citizens on such platforms.

Pretty neat if you ask me but the concern is that they can be targeted by malicious elements given that thieves and burglars at the least have a knowledge about bitcoin and that they might assume that those people investing in them probably have a lot of money in them to be able to get that, there's also the matter of privacy, if you pay your rent with bitcoin, wouldn't you be exposing your identity to your landlord? Including your wallet address, hopefully this is just a concern that won't really happen at all but it's still worth talking over.

Besides my concerns, I think that bitcoin payment for your rent in Argentina might be a big help given that the inflation in the country is constantly growing every single day, you're better off hedging yourself against inflation rather than keep your money that would only serve to go down in value the next day, this is a good step in the right direction in my opinion.

When you spend your bitcoin in public trades, you know that there is no guarantee for your privacy from your trade partners that can be individual or a company, store, whatever.

Your privacy must be secured by yourself, on how you store your bitcoins, how you organize your bitcoin fund storage in inputs and outputs. Outputs include how you spend your bitcoin for an apartment renting payment.

The company, the store can give you promise about privacy but first, you can not trust anyone to secure your privacy. Even if they are sincere with their promise, their security, data base can be hacked and your information will be leaked.

Privacy recommendations for Bitcoin transactions.
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/privacy-o-meter

yeah. Many companies try to include bitcoin as part of their payment because they know how the world is turning, and many youths have already learned the concept of bitcoin and what it can be used for, so I think they feel using Bitcoin will attract many people's attention to patronize their brand. This is not a bad practice, but it may be bad to me because they also take bitcoin to the next level in that locality because many people from there and even learn about it after hearing how easy and secure their money will be if they use it as a means of payment, and those who are yet to believe in bitcoin may do so because they are seeing it everywhere, so they will view it as a scam again.


Did we need privacy before people accepted bitcoin in their store or any business center? NO. Because it is not necessary for the seller to use only Bitcoin as another means of payment for their store, as you can see, there is no need to say that what they are selling must be private before we send bitcoin as a fared currency, even though we know that bitcoin transactions require much privacy, but I don't think this will be an issue. The person who is selling should be the one who will protect the wallet he or she uses to receive the bitcoin.

One of the best things to happen in the crypto industry is this one because it will further increase popularity and convenience when you have bitcoins and that's the best thing we want to have right now, especially with all of the non-sense they throw on crypto where they always have bad issue with it, more adaptations and implementations to make it one of their accepted payments in their businesses is good and surely it will be followed by the others who have been thinking about it, it just need someone to begin it and this is the right time for them to show their interest as well and make bitcoins one of the accepted payment in their companies too.

Well, it's true that the government will slowly implement crypto currency in the community or in the country, but also this kind of movement should be planned and thought through thoroughly because we know how volatile a crypto currency can be, so there may be a conflict for both the customer and owner of the business. If this is about the land of rent, then this has to have a proper contract with a proper handling of bitcoin because there will be no fixed amount in crypto currency, so anytime the rent fee could change, and there should be a way to handle that situation in a contract to avoid conflict. Anyway, in conclusion, this article or news is good because we can see now that the government itself is taking bold and new steps in order to give people more options and be more open to new innovations and opportunities.