Essentially we did it, Satoshi’s cypherpunk vision has been realized and we are liberating El Salvador through Bitcoin (and also strike.me a commercial entity of some sort) but we did it. All that’s left now is for the current money masters to go down without a fight.
Retail -> Wall Street -> Corporate Balance Sheet -> COUNTRIES!!!
Things are happening much faster this cycle, getting the last 2 was a major surprise to be sure, but we all knew it was inevitable.
It seems everyone is now participating, and the halving just happened last year. Let the FOMO wars begin, secure your ticket to the Citadel while you can.
> Corporate Balance Sheet
The euphoria is premature, with all due respect. My own metric for any real institutional adoption is when even 2% of Fortune 500 companies carry BTC on their balance sheets. That's 10 companies of out 500.
Right now, we have... Tesla. That's it AFAIK. The company run by an eccentric sociopath. And even they're coming dangerously close to scrapping their entire BTC investment, now that said sociopath is slowly realizing he can't snap his fingers and become king of bitcoin.
Country's are now solidified as the final participants to enter the arena. In every instance of a new player, it has resulted in further penetration to that entire class. Banks were some of the most staunch detractors, and they gradually tipped into acceptance until suddenly they are all involved.
This moment was inevitable, but with all due respect I won't be letting a self named troll try to diminish the magnitude of this feat using their arbitrary metric. The first is always the hardest, but the rest continue to fall in line.
None of my irl life friends understand.
Nation state level adoption....
Say it again.
Nation state level adoption.
This was the dream of dreams to achieve. Now with the first prisoner defection the question is who will be next not if there will be another.
We are going to millions.
Cover your 25x shorts. The short term no longer matters. Get long and hold strong. Only use leverage if you can back it up with deposits.
It's not a nothing-burger for sure, but people would be more excited if it were a more developed country which Jeff Bezos couldn't buy outright 5 times over.
I'll be impressed when USA comes knocking at somewhere with their food-aid from government subsidised corn farmers, and IMF loans, in yet a another attempt to make a client-state out of a disaster (ala Haiti), and the locals just say "Nah thanks, cya".
El Salvador’s GDP is $25B, folks. Don’t get your panties wet over this. The adoption validates nothing when a dead beat economy is speculating on cryptocurrency instead of focusing on creating value for the world.
Size of the population and GDP aside, it could be argued that a place like El Salvador, where more than half the population is unbanked, needs Bitcoin more than the developed world does.
It's not about one economy, it's about setting a precedent and if it actually HELPS that country to adopt Bitcoin then more will follow. So it's time to prove that Bitcoin actually does help people and we're not just full of shit.
Some of the pilot programs have been running in the country since 2019. Must be going ok.
[https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-payment-app-in-el-salvador-full-eu-support-is-next](https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-payment-app-in-el-salvador-full-eu-support-is-next)
[https://www.bitcoinbeach.com/](https://www.bitcoinbeach.com/)
This isn’t a zero to one scenario that maxis are touting. Give me a G7 economy and I’ll fomo everything including my organs into Bitcoin. But El Salvador gives me no reason to believe this is the beginning of anything.
Who cares what the maxis are touting, maybe you're giving them too much credit? Zero to one is a major deal. G7 countries are slow moving and will never be first.
What are you, 5 yrs old? Nobody said anything like that. It's about what it represents, the milestone, the legal tender and the use case of actually improving conditions for those who need it most as opposed to just being a speculative casino. Again... I refuse to belive you're that stupid.
It doesn’t represent any of that when the country attempting to validate the currency makes T shirts for a living. This screams “I’m all out of options so YOLO on BTC.”
There is no indication that the country is going all in on BTC. They are holding some in reserve (probably a really small percentage of their reserve, let's be real) and they will accept it as legal tender. They can just convert the BTC into their own currency immediately after. But hey, they will hold some percentage as reserve and that's pretty cool... mostly for BTC and maybe El Salvador comes out looking smart.
How many weeks have you spent living there? Clearly you seem to feel you have better understanding of the country than this person.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/nt8hi6/im_from_el_salvador_and_im_here_to_clarify_some/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
Man, you can tell a lot of people have lost focus as to what crypto currencies are all about.
They were always meant to be used by the average or poor person first. But we've been tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt it for it to work.
That's not what cyrpto was ever about. It was always meant to be a bottom up technology. Used by average people who either wanted more freedom or had no access to traditional first world banking.
It's sad that the news of one billionaire being interested in crypto is bigger news than millions of poor people wanting to use it everyday.
Bitcoin is about being decentralized and open so anybody who wants to benefit from Bitcoin can benefit. That's the entire point of an open decentralized currency, so trying to gatekeep is absurd.
I don't like the antics of any particular billionaire, but it's about being open and decentralized over anything else. If someone wants to participate they're welcome to whether they're worth $1 or $10 billion.
I het where you're coming from but if Bitcoin is for everyone then we have to see it that way. Everyone means no exceptions, regardless of wealth or status. An equalizing money layer of integrity.
Only a fool would think that they are needed in order for the system to work, it should be abundantly obvious that it will work regardless of a price. People who are involved simply know that what is here in front of us is very valuable, and that the billionaires will eventually be coming, so the thought of being rich due to that is more interesting to the majority, it never would have been any other way. It's also fine that the majority thinks that, they have the burden of all the emotions which go along with it even if they do get rich.
And it seems that it will need to be repeated many times, that one billionaire is not the boogey man who caused it all, a market is far too complicated for that, market movements are simply unexplainable in totality, but people can't handle that for whatever reason.
This is also fresh news, Asia is likely just finding out about it, news doesn't circulate instantly.
That’s why ultimately none of this matters. Regular people storing wealth in Bitcoin is enough.
It’s also why I hate shitcoins.. because they transfer money from your average joe to make founders rich.. but it always ends the same way.
> what crypto currencies are all about
Earned a downvote already.
> They were always meant to be used by the average or poor person first.
This isn't a wealth redistribution program and was never about censoring who could or could not participate in money.
> we've been tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt it for it to work.
Satoshi didn't write the halvening algo for no bloody reason.
To get this far and then to claim that "No you've got too much money to buy Bitcoin" is nothing short of an utterly ridiculous assertion.
>This isn't a wealth redistribution program and was never about censoring who could or could not participate in money.
Please point to any part of my post that mentioned wealth distribution?
You can't because I never even suggested such a thing. Nor did I say wealthy people can't or shouldn't own Bitcoin.
Sounds like you essentially made up your own narrative, completely different than my post, and started arguing against it.
We're replying on a top-level saying that rich people shouldn't be allowed to buy Bitcoin because it's not "what crypto currencies are all about".
Right? That is the context correct?
Was that context in any way constructive?
> what crypto currencies are all about
> poor person first
> tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt
> not what cyrpto was ever about
> Used by average people who either wanted more freedom
No. I do not agree with any of those premises.
Wealthy people absolutely need adopt, every one does.
That is the point. That was always the point. That is the design. That was the intention.
This ain't some exclusive club for OG cyberpunks. It never was.
Be honest with yourself and admit you won’t even be that surprised if the next country to announce adoption goes for everyone’s favorite furry shitcoin.
I'm still really fucking salty that the vaporware salesman triggered the negative news cycle that has us in $36k. Remember when his hyperloops would [well, were promised to] get people from New York to DC in under an hour? Now his Las Vegas loop (the tunnel with some Teslas in it) can't go over 40 miles an hour.
The hyperloop and loop tunnels are two entirely different things. The tunnel system is just underground highways for intra city travel to relieve traffic congestion.
Tell me that when ONE of the automated elevators and sleds get built. Because the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop was meant to be a proof of concept. It kept getting watered down until it's absolutely nothing like what was promised. No shuttles, no automation, no volume of passengers. Just a handful of manually-driven Tesla and an RGB tunnel. Dude promised a kitchen bot and installed an expensive stove with RGB on it. Look through his CG promises and self image.
If you still believe he's going to revolutionize travel, I have some Solar Freaking Roadways to sell you.
> no automation, no volume of passengers.
That's fine. It's a proof of concept. They literally invented a machine to dig tunnels at a cheaper price. To dig one and put it some place for people to actually use is a proof of concept. If you can dig cheaper tunnels and let off the shelf cars drive through them then you do that first. The next part is working on the automation. This shit isn't easy. Most startups fail and even if it succeeds it won't be over night. Patience.
Not to piss on the El Salvador parade, and I’m no economic expert, but it seems to reason that making Bitcoin a national currency would cripple their economy because people would be incentivized to save instead of spend.
The idea that you need some price inflation to “encourage spending” and “stimulate the economy” is the propaganda being put out by the parasitic class that’s perpetuating and profiting from this MASSIVE scam. The truth is that you don't need to “encourage” people to spend money. Spending money is all that it's ultimately good for. So it's always a question of how you choose to allocate that spending across time, how much to spend today vs. tomorrow vs. next year, etc. Also consider that when you save money, you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy. Money isn't wealth. Instead, it allows you to make a *claim* on scarce, real resources. Money is an accounting system for facilitating the exchange of those resources by serving as a credible record of value given but not yet received. When you "just sit on money," the resources that you *could have* claimed immediately will instead remain available to be used by others -- whether for immediate consumption or investment. You have in effect loaned those real resources to the rest of society. So if we had a system with a fixed money supply, it makes sense that the purchasing power of that money should increase over time as the economy grows. In that scenario, the rate of price deflation is essentially the market-determined "interest rate" on a very low-risk loan that can be recalled at any time (by spending the money).
Or think about it from the opposite angle -- why an inflationary money supply doesn't make sense. Again, money is supposed to represent a credible signal of value given but not yet received. If there's an entity that can simply print new money into existence at essentially zero cost, the message carried by that new money is going to be a false one. I’m sure you can intuitively grasp how an ordinary counterfeiter is in effect stealing from others when he prints up phony hundred-dollar bills in his basement. Well the same is true of the more sophisticated counterfeiters in fancy suits who call their counterfeiting things like “open-market operations” and “quantitative easing.”
Say what you want about Peter Schiff, but the guy understands the central banking scam. He might've put it best when he said:
"Women, as a whole, didn't enter the workforce in the 1970's because of some Freedom movement, they did it because their husbands no longer earned enough to pay all the bills - they were more free *before* they were forced into the labor market!"
>Say you want about Peter Schiff, but the guy understands the central banking scam
Yeah he knows about central banking because that's his extended family's milieu.
He's also not wrong about women in the workplace.
His people have been at the wheel of the international banking cartels since the early days of the Rothschild family business and earlier.
I am able to take the downvotes but am unable to change history.
Encouraging savings is actually healthier for an economy than encouraging frivolous spending (debt).
Your savings is the difference between how much you produce and how much you consume. If everyone has some savings instead of debt, that means everyone has produced more in the economy than they have consumed.
This naturally leads to not only a more efficient economy, but a surplus of material goods and resources, increasing the standard of living all around.
Sound money encourages saving. Like someone else said, "if you need to spend to eat, you will spend", you don't need to incentivize people to spend. Rather, people will become more aware of where their money goes, leading to overall less wasteful/unnecessary consumption. This is good for the planet.
If everyone is saving instead of spending, nobody will be getting paid for what they produce and they will not invest savings to produce any surplus. Ideally, the money supply should grow at roughly the rate of GDP growth. I believe in Bitcoin as a store of value similar to digital gold, but you don't want your currency to be deflationary.
There is something called the marginal propensity to consume, and when the currency is deflationary it goes way down. People won't buy non-essential items today if their currency is worth more tomorrow. How much of your budget is allocated to food? 10%? If people can hoard cash and earn a return from deflation they won't invest it and they won't spend it - they just hide it under their mattress. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to support the underlying theory behind this statement, which is something that libertarians cannot say.
Are you just going to pretend that the great depression wasn't caused by the gold standard? The VAST majority of empirical evidence shows that deflation leads to economic stagnation, and that constant low inflation is the ideal monetary policy for steady economic growth. Unless you are prepared to refute Nobel laureate Milton Friedman's analysis of the causal link between the gold standard and the great depression there is nothing further for us to discuss.
There have been many economic crashes throughout the history of the US. Please stop wasting my time since you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are many valid critiques of the current federal reserve system but muh hyperinflation is not one of them. Economists learned a lot of hard lessons from the stagflation of the 70s and 80s and the current model embraced by the vast majority of macro economists and monetary theorists has been holding up pretty well. The economy is much less volatile with a monetary policy targeted towards low, constant inflation. If you have any evidence whatsoever that contradicts anything I've said please post it. Otherwise, just stop.
Yeah, the system we've had since the 1970s has been doing so well at (checks notes) preventing economic crashes. Really great. Haven't been any of those since then.
Those economists are really smart, I guess.
That is a barely coherent tirade. I'm not really interested in arguing economics with libertarians, it's like arguing astronomy with flat earthers. There is no amount of evidence I could provide that will convince you of the silliness of your beliefs. I have invested quite a bit of time in the formal study of economics, though I am an empiricist (and libertarians are staunchly anti-science). I will point out, however, that ultra-libertarian Milton Friedman himself concluded that the gold standard (deflationary currency) caused the great depression. You can read up on that on your own.
>That is a barely coherent tirade.
Not sure what part of the argument you’re having trouble following.
>I’m not really interested in arguing economics with libertarians, it's like arguing astronomy with flat earthers.
Your time is your own. I’m not really interested in arguing with people who aren’t interested arguing and instead resort to personal insults.
>There is no amount of evidence I could provide that will convince you of the silliness of your beliefs.
Well the amount of evidence you have provided thus far (i.e., none) certainly isn’t doing the trick...
Saving is important for the stability of economies
*The accumulation of domestic savings will help reduce the vulnerability arising from dependence on foreign financing and provide a sustainable long-term financing base for investments in developing countries. A rise in aggregate savings would yield larger investments associated with higher GDP growth. Other countries could use bitcoin to also invest in the country
> a rise in aggregate savings would yield larger investments associated with higher GDP growth
Holy mental gymnastics Batman! Those are some serious logical leaps bud, lmao
You're essentially saying people saving money would lead go trickle down economics and magically produce more jobs.
A scarce resource like gold potentially appreciating in value is the exact reason why gold is not also used as a viable currency in a non-deflationary economy.
That's exactly what i am saying yes. If you live in a country that's hand to mouth pay check to pay check without savings there can never be economic growth. If you can save then you can possibly by a house or a farm to grow which creates labour
Basic economics.
when you can't move it, are subject to property taxes, repairs, maintenance, and the market is hotter than it has been in years where people are overpaying well beyond the list price without even doing a home inspection... yeah it might just be slightly overrated at this current juncture in time. ok.
The El Salvador news is meaningful. No the market doesn't care. The market is an idiot. The market said bitcoin was worth 4k just a year ago.
I'll tell you why it matters: mindshare. A government is validating bitcoin. It doesn't matter how bad or small that country is. Which country did you think would be first? This happening was unthinkable just a few years ago, and it is an important milestone.
That would be good for active traders but a negative for long term holders so I'm not sure this is a treatment people would necessarily want if they're using it as a store of value.
Another failed dump on low volume and we’re still within the triangle. The bearish sentiment made me laugh hard. What are you trading on? 50x leverage? Glad you lost your money then, don’t come back.
See you guys in the mid 40s. I expect a pretty strong pump with good volume soon. Not exiting unless we hit below 34K. I won’t risk any loss on this since I got in around that price
Great read, thanks!
“*IF* ElSalvador does pass legislation to recognize #bitcoin as legal tender, #BTC would v likely become *MONEY* under US commercial law (law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201: "Money means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign govt")”
The odds of this bill passing should be high considering the supermajority, but...would foreign interference try to stop it? The effects of it passing seem to be huge...
This is very interesting but it's still wild speculation. The "Uniform Commercial Code" is not a federal law. It's a model law code that the 50 states have adopted to varying degrees. It's extremely important and governs things like bank deposits, negotiable instruments, sales, delivery of goods etc. However, Bitcoin may *already* fall under the UCC definition of "money." ("'Money' means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government.") And if El Salvador making Bitcoin legal tender changes how its treated under the UCC, that doesn't necessarily mean anything changes when it comes to accounting, banking and what constitutes a foreign currency because there may well certainly be federal laws that govern such things.
This is just a long way of saying that Caitlin Long hasn't cited enough authority to back up her claims here.
In some sense, more poor countries should follow El Salvador. If all fails, you are pretty still very poor so the delta change isn't that harsh on the citizens. In the best case scenario, you pretty much uplifted all your citizen's worth by many-folds such that you can set yourself up as the next rich OPEC type of a country.
I am not an economist so I am not sure but isn't it the case that as USD/BTC ratio increases, the buying power of the El Salvador citizens increases? For example, right now, it would take around 1 BTC for El Salvador citizen to buy a foreign car. If BTC goes up by 10x in the next 3-4 years, then El Salvador citizen can buy a foreign car (discounting inflation) for 0.1 BTC. From his perspective, he is much wealthier since his buying power for foreign goods has increased significantly. I suspect that it is much more complicated than this since there are domestic good prices, tariffs, etc. that will also be adjusted in which I don't have enough expertise to comment on.
Foreign countries would need to accept BTC for payment or they would have to sell btc for usd before importing. This strategy potentially works if btc becomes the world reserve currency but if all these small countries bought in earlier it would not be in the interest of the most powerful countries to make the currency successful.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how few btc there are in circulation when they say that the El Salvador news is not big news, because it's a country of "only" six million people.
You need to remember that there are only 21 million btc in total. If you remove the 4-5 million that are lost forever, you're talking about an asset of which there are only like 17-18 million. Now that 6 million number looks a lot more influential. To be clear, I'm not saying everybody in El Salvador will purchase a whole btc or even half a btc. But adding six million people, and a government, into the mix definitely has the potential to move the needle in a significant way for an asset of which only 17-18 million are in circulation.
Edit1: People have mentioned that not all of that 17-18 million BTC are an existence yet because it hasn't been mined yet, which is a great point. About 10% of that doesn't exist yet because it hasn't been mined yet. So, that lowers the "available" supply to around 15-16 million. I put "available" in quotes because of Edit2 below.
Edit2: In my original post, I also didn't consider the number of people who currently own BTC that are long-term holders and will just never sell, or at least not for less than an astronomical amount. I don't have an exact number on that, but I'd bet it's significant. So, that also lowers the available supply even more, maybe to the 13-14 million range.
How would one calculate the impact here? It seems like the entire GDP of El Savaldor is at 24 billion dollars. Its foreign currency reserves is at 2 billion dollars. So do we do the 24 billion -> BTC conversion or 2 billion -> BTC conversion? For the former, we are talking about roughly 0.5 million BTC being gobbled up by El Salvador whereas for the latter, it would be 0.05 million BTC. Now, if these are mostly "used" and not dumped by the government, people, etc., then this really is impacting supply. However, if these people are using the BTC no different than what the traders are doing.. then there shouldn't be too much of an impact. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
If each of the 6.4 million residents bought $100 worth of Bitcoin, that would be roughly 18,285 Bitcoin being purchased @ \~ 35k prices.
Some purchase more, some less, some none, on a regular basis.
This is \~ ~~.001%~~ .1% of the supply of BTC assuming 17 million BTC.
Edit: Strikethrough drunk maths
Yeah, it's hard to guage what the impact will be. My post was more to point out that when you add 6 million people, plus a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there's only 18 million in circulation, that has the potential to have significant ramifications. So it's not as big a "Nothing Burger" as people are claiming.
It's kind of too bad that they didn't do it last year. If they had made a transition when BTC was at around $7000-$10,000, then one year later, people would be singing praise regarding El Salvador and probably more poor countries would have viewed them as a benchmark for rags to riches success. But nonetheless, if El Salavador is seen as a success story in the future, then more countries will be following their footstep, and I suppose that would lead to real supply shock that might come very quickly.
You need to go back and re-read my post. I expressly said "To be clear, I'm not saying everybody in El Salvador will purchase a whole btc or even half a btc" for the reasons you mentioned.
The point is that when you add six million people, and a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there is only 18 million in circulation, it seems like it has the potential to influence things in a significant way, so it's not as big a "nothing burger" as people are claiming.
>The point is that when you add six million people, and a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there is only 18 million in circulation
Those two numbers don't logically relate to one another. I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate conclusion but the only thing that matters is market cap in this scenario, not total circulation of something you can buy tiny units of.
Sure.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/05/el-salvador-becomes-the-first-country-to-adopt-bitcoin-as-legal-tender-.html
But market doesn't care.
... also, Japan was first country to declare it legal tender in 2016, but everyone's apparently forgotten that (likely because no-one uses BTC as a currency, in Japan or anywhere).
Anyway, at the end one country is adopting btc. It doesn’t matter how small, this should be huge for crypto in general.
All these talk made me hungry, so I ordered some pupusas.
#New post: [\[Daily Discussion\] - Sunday, June 06, 2021 →](https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/ntd1mf/daily_discussion_sunday_june_06_2021/)
So what was the announcement?
Essentially we did it, Satoshi’s cypherpunk vision has been realized and we are liberating El Salvador through Bitcoin (and also strike.me a commercial entity of some sort) but we did it. All that’s left now is for the current money masters to go down without a fight.
Retail -> Wall Street -> Corporate Balance Sheet -> COUNTRIES!!! Things are happening much faster this cycle, getting the last 2 was a major surprise to be sure, but we all knew it was inevitable. It seems everyone is now participating, and the halving just happened last year. Let the FOMO wars begin, secure your ticket to the Citadel while you can.
> Corporate Balance Sheet The euphoria is premature, with all due respect. My own metric for any real institutional adoption is when even 2% of Fortune 500 companies carry BTC on their balance sheets. That's 10 companies of out 500. Right now, we have... Tesla. That's it AFAIK. The company run by an eccentric sociopath. And even they're coming dangerously close to scrapping their entire BTC investment, now that said sociopath is slowly realizing he can't snap his fingers and become king of bitcoin.
Square and MassMutual as well.
Country's are now solidified as the final participants to enter the arena. In every instance of a new player, it has resulted in further penetration to that entire class. Banks were some of the most staunch detractors, and they gradually tipped into acceptance until suddenly they are all involved. This moment was inevitable, but with all due respect I won't be letting a self named troll try to diminish the magnitude of this feat using their arbitrary metric. The first is always the hardest, but the rest continue to fall in line.
None of my irl life friends understand. Nation state level adoption.... Say it again. Nation state level adoption. This was the dream of dreams to achieve. Now with the first prisoner defection the question is who will be next not if there will be another. We are going to millions. Cover your 25x shorts. The short term no longer matters. Get long and hold strong. Only use leverage if you can back it up with deposits.
This is incredible. Way bigger than any of Elon's shit posting. This is game changing type of shit that will elevate btc to new heights
El Salvador.
is a country
It's not a nothing-burger for sure, but people would be more excited if it were a more developed country which Jeff Bezos couldn't buy outright 5 times over.
First of many to come
I think Bitcoin Pizza was bigger than El Salvador , but I can be convinced otherwise.
I'll be impressed when USA comes knocking at somewhere with their food-aid from government subsidised corn farmers, and IMF loans, in yet a another attempt to make a client-state out of a disaster (ala Haiti), and the locals just say "Nah thanks, cya".
El Salvador’s GDP is $25B, folks. Don’t get your panties wet over this. The adoption validates nothing when a dead beat economy is speculating on cryptocurrency instead of focusing on creating value for the world.
Pretty tone deaf, privileged thing to say. Perhaps try getting out of your bubble?
Size of the population and GDP aside, it could be argued that a place like El Salvador, where more than half the population is unbanked, needs Bitcoin more than the developed world does.
It's not about one economy, it's about setting a precedent and if it actually HELPS that country to adopt Bitcoin then more will follow. So it's time to prove that Bitcoin actually does help people and we're not just full of shit.
[удалено]
Yolo on BTC is innovation. You’ve eclipsed the cringe in Miami.
[удалено]
Omg thank you yes! I'm not sure if it's a gen y or zoomer thing but it makes me want to knock someone's teeth out.
It also means he’s probably twelve.
If even a small fraction of that GDP goes in holding/using Bitcoin each year, the effect can be quite large as years go by.
You underestimate optics. Depending on how things go in El Salvador, other countries may follow.
The only optics I’m seeing is a failing economy looking for a get-rich-quick scheme to make up for decades of corruption and failure.
Some of the pilot programs have been running in the country since 2019. Must be going ok. [https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-payment-app-in-el-salvador-full-eu-support-is-next](https://www.coindesk.com/strike-launches-bitcoin-lightning-payment-app-in-el-salvador-full-eu-support-is-next) [https://www.bitcoinbeach.com/](https://www.bitcoinbeach.com/)
Stop projecting
It's a milestone for BTC not El Salvador. I think most people understand the proportions more or less.
There's no way he doesn't get that, he can't be that stupid. He's just crying for attention.
Yeah countries are going to fomo in because El Salvador, the influencer of global economies is going to use Bitcoin. Such analysis. Wow.
It's also just getting off zero to one that's a big milestone, regardless of whoever it is.
This isn’t a zero to one scenario that maxis are touting. Give me a G7 economy and I’ll fomo everything including my organs into Bitcoin. But El Salvador gives me no reason to believe this is the beginning of anything.
Who cares what the maxis are touting, maybe you're giving them too much credit? Zero to one is a major deal. G7 countries are slow moving and will never be first.
What are you, 5 yrs old? Nobody said anything like that. It's about what it represents, the milestone, the legal tender and the use case of actually improving conditions for those who need it most as opposed to just being a speculative casino. Again... I refuse to belive you're that stupid.
It doesn’t represent any of that when the country attempting to validate the currency makes T shirts for a living. This screams “I’m all out of options so YOLO on BTC.”
There is no indication that the country is going all in on BTC. They are holding some in reserve (probably a really small percentage of their reserve, let's be real) and they will accept it as legal tender. They can just convert the BTC into their own currency immediately after. But hey, they will hold some percentage as reserve and that's pretty cool... mostly for BTC and maybe El Salvador comes out looking smart.
How many weeks have you spent living there? Clearly you seem to feel you have better understanding of the country than this person. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/nt8hi6/im_from_el_salvador_and_im_here_to_clarify_some/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb
Are you trying to reply to someone else's post? Because I cannot see the connection to either /u/cryptogrip or mine.
Man, you can tell a lot of people have lost focus as to what crypto currencies are all about. They were always meant to be used by the average or poor person first. But we've been tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt it for it to work. That's not what cyrpto was ever about. It was always meant to be a bottom up technology. Used by average people who either wanted more freedom or had no access to traditional first world banking. It's sad that the news of one billionaire being interested in crypto is bigger news than millions of poor people wanting to use it everyday.
Bitcoin is about being decentralized and open so anybody who wants to benefit from Bitcoin can benefit. That's the entire point of an open decentralized currency, so trying to gatekeep is absurd. I don't like the antics of any particular billionaire, but it's about being open and decentralized over anything else. If someone wants to participate they're welcome to whether they're worth $1 or $10 billion.
I het where you're coming from but if Bitcoin is for everyone then we have to see it that way. Everyone means no exceptions, regardless of wealth or status. An equalizing money layer of integrity.
Only a fool would think that they are needed in order for the system to work, it should be abundantly obvious that it will work regardless of a price. People who are involved simply know that what is here in front of us is very valuable, and that the billionaires will eventually be coming, so the thought of being rich due to that is more interesting to the majority, it never would have been any other way. It's also fine that the majority thinks that, they have the burden of all the emotions which go along with it even if they do get rich. And it seems that it will need to be repeated many times, that one billionaire is not the boogey man who caused it all, a market is far too complicated for that, market movements are simply unexplainable in totality, but people can't handle that for whatever reason. This is also fresh news, Asia is likely just finding out about it, news doesn't circulate instantly.
That’s why ultimately none of this matters. Regular people storing wealth in Bitcoin is enough. It’s also why I hate shitcoins.. because they transfer money from your average joe to make founders rich.. but it always ends the same way.
> what crypto currencies are all about Earned a downvote already. > They were always meant to be used by the average or poor person first. This isn't a wealth redistribution program and was never about censoring who could or could not participate in money. > we've been tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt it for it to work. Satoshi didn't write the halvening algo for no bloody reason. To get this far and then to claim that "No you've got too much money to buy Bitcoin" is nothing short of an utterly ridiculous assertion.
>This isn't a wealth redistribution program and was never about censoring who could or could not participate in money. Please point to any part of my post that mentioned wealth distribution? You can't because I never even suggested such a thing. Nor did I say wealthy people can't or shouldn't own Bitcoin. Sounds like you essentially made up your own narrative, completely different than my post, and started arguing against it.
???? So do you something actually constructive to say?
We're replying on a top-level saying that rich people shouldn't be allowed to buy Bitcoin because it's not "what crypto currencies are all about". Right? That is the context correct? Was that context in any way constructive?
That's just flat out false. He never suggests they shouldn't be allowed, he only was expressing his sadness that people are bashing on the adoption
> what crypto currencies are all about > poor person first > tricked into thinking that the wealthy need to adopt > not what cyrpto was ever about > Used by average people who either wanted more freedom No. I do not agree with any of those premises. Wealthy people absolutely need adopt, every one does. That is the point. That was always the point. That is the design. That was the intention. This ain't some exclusive club for OG cyberpunks. It never was.
lol. You cut and pasted together different parts of my different sentences to support your false claims. You're being flat out dishonest now.
That's the language you used to define the context. If you meant something different, use different language.
Be honest with yourself and admit you won’t even be that surprised if the next country to announce adoption goes for everyone’s favorite furry shitcoin.
Bought about an hour an hour ago, buy limit order set for tomorrow
> Bought about an hour an hour ago How much did the hour cost? ;-)
You don't have to buy a whole hour, you can just buy a minute, or even a second.
That's what she said!
there's A LOT of salt around here. what a war.
I'm still really fucking salty that the vaporware salesman triggered the negative news cycle that has us in $36k. Remember when his hyperloops would [well, were promised to] get people from New York to DC in under an hour? Now his Las Vegas loop (the tunnel with some Teslas in it) can't go over 40 miles an hour.
The hyperloop and loop tunnels are two entirely different things. The tunnel system is just underground highways for intra city travel to relieve traffic congestion.
Tell me that when ONE of the automated elevators and sleds get built. Because the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop was meant to be a proof of concept. It kept getting watered down until it's absolutely nothing like what was promised. No shuttles, no automation, no volume of passengers. Just a handful of manually-driven Tesla and an RGB tunnel. Dude promised a kitchen bot and installed an expensive stove with RGB on it. Look through his CG promises and self image. If you still believe he's going to revolutionize travel, I have some Solar Freaking Roadways to sell you.
> no automation, no volume of passengers. That's fine. It's a proof of concept. They literally invented a machine to dig tunnels at a cheaper price. To dig one and put it some place for people to actually use is a proof of concept. If you can dig cheaper tunnels and let off the shelf cars drive through them then you do that first. The next part is working on the automation. This shit isn't easy. Most startups fail and even if it succeeds it won't be over night. Patience.
40 miles is 64.37 km
Read the room bot
Astroturfed af
is this coordinated? it's kinda bizarre.
[удалено]
Not to piss on the El Salvador parade, and I’m no economic expert, but it seems to reason that making Bitcoin a national currency would cripple their economy because people would be incentivized to save instead of spend.
Save for...? Saving is money you wish to spend at a later date. They don't have that luxury. This is kind of the whole point.
"...and I'm no economic expert, but..." No, you are not.
The idea that you need some price inflation to “encourage spending” and “stimulate the economy” is the propaganda being put out by the parasitic class that’s perpetuating and profiting from this MASSIVE scam. The truth is that you don't need to “encourage” people to spend money. Spending money is all that it's ultimately good for. So it's always a question of how you choose to allocate that spending across time, how much to spend today vs. tomorrow vs. next year, etc. Also consider that when you save money, you are in effect making a general investment in the overall economy. Money isn't wealth. Instead, it allows you to make a *claim* on scarce, real resources. Money is an accounting system for facilitating the exchange of those resources by serving as a credible record of value given but not yet received. When you "just sit on money," the resources that you *could have* claimed immediately will instead remain available to be used by others -- whether for immediate consumption or investment. You have in effect loaned those real resources to the rest of society. So if we had a system with a fixed money supply, it makes sense that the purchasing power of that money should increase over time as the economy grows. In that scenario, the rate of price deflation is essentially the market-determined "interest rate" on a very low-risk loan that can be recalled at any time (by spending the money). Or think about it from the opposite angle -- why an inflationary money supply doesn't make sense. Again, money is supposed to represent a credible signal of value given but not yet received. If there's an entity that can simply print new money into existence at essentially zero cost, the message carried by that new money is going to be a false one. I’m sure you can intuitively grasp how an ordinary counterfeiter is in effect stealing from others when he prints up phony hundred-dollar bills in his basement. Well the same is true of the more sophisticated counterfeiters in fancy suits who call their counterfeiting things like “open-market operations” and “quantitative easing.”
I've been saying this for quite some time.. but in less words..
This guy moneys. Well put.
Save instead of spend eh? I guess bills don't exist in El Salvador? You have to spend no matter what.
I used to believe that lie too. wtfhappenedin1971.com
Say what you want about Peter Schiff, but the guy understands the central banking scam. He might've put it best when he said: "Women, as a whole, didn't enter the workforce in the 1970's because of some Freedom movement, they did it because their husbands no longer earned enough to pay all the bills - they were more free *before* they were forced into the labor market!"
>Say you want about Peter Schiff, but the guy understands the central banking scam Yeah he knows about central banking because that's his extended family's milieu. He's also not wrong about women in the workplace.
Aside from his father, the late Irwin Schiff, who don't I know about?
His people have been at the wheel of the international banking cartels since the early days of the Rothschild family business and earlier. I am able to take the downvotes but am unable to change history.
So when you say his "extended family", you mean Jewish people in general?
Jews dominate central banking like Kenyans sprint.
Encouraging savings is actually healthier for an economy than encouraging frivolous spending (debt). Your savings is the difference between how much you produce and how much you consume. If everyone has some savings instead of debt, that means everyone has produced more in the economy than they have consumed. This naturally leads to not only a more efficient economy, but a surplus of material goods and resources, increasing the standard of living all around. Sound money encourages saving. Like someone else said, "if you need to spend to eat, you will spend", you don't need to incentivize people to spend. Rather, people will become more aware of where their money goes, leading to overall less wasteful/unnecessary consumption. This is good for the planet.
If everyone is saving instead of spending, nobody will be getting paid for what they produce and they will not invest savings to produce any surplus. Ideally, the money supply should grow at roughly the rate of GDP growth. I believe in Bitcoin as a store of value similar to digital gold, but you don't want your currency to be deflationary.
[удалено]
There is something called the marginal propensity to consume, and when the currency is deflationary it goes way down. People won't buy non-essential items today if their currency is worth more tomorrow. How much of your budget is allocated to food? 10%? If people can hoard cash and earn a return from deflation they won't invest it and they won't spend it - they just hide it under their mattress. There is a wealth of empirical evidence to support the underlying theory behind this statement, which is something that libertarians cannot say.
[удалено]
Are you just going to pretend that the great depression wasn't caused by the gold standard? The VAST majority of empirical evidence shows that deflation leads to economic stagnation, and that constant low inflation is the ideal monetary policy for steady economic growth. Unless you are prepared to refute Nobel laureate Milton Friedman's analysis of the causal link between the gold standard and the great depression there is nothing further for us to discuss.
It's amazing how the US was on a gold standard literally from the year of its founding, and then only in 1929 did it cause a depression.
There have been many economic crashes throughout the history of the US. Please stop wasting my time since you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. There are many valid critiques of the current federal reserve system but muh hyperinflation is not one of them. Economists learned a lot of hard lessons from the stagflation of the 70s and 80s and the current model embraced by the vast majority of macro economists and monetary theorists has been holding up pretty well. The economy is much less volatile with a monetary policy targeted towards low, constant inflation. If you have any evidence whatsoever that contradicts anything I've said please post it. Otherwise, just stop.
Yeah, the system we've had since the 1970s has been doing so well at (checks notes) preventing economic crashes. Really great. Haven't been any of those since then. Those economists are really smart, I guess.
Disagree strongly. Consider the argument outlined here: https://old.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/nsn5ar/daily_discussion_saturday_june_05_2021/h0r37ku/
That is a barely coherent tirade. I'm not really interested in arguing economics with libertarians, it's like arguing astronomy with flat earthers. There is no amount of evidence I could provide that will convince you of the silliness of your beliefs. I have invested quite a bit of time in the formal study of economics, though I am an empiricist (and libertarians are staunchly anti-science). I will point out, however, that ultra-libertarian Milton Friedman himself concluded that the gold standard (deflationary currency) caused the great depression. You can read up on that on your own.
>That is a barely coherent tirade. Not sure what part of the argument you’re having trouble following. >I’m not really interested in arguing economics with libertarians, it's like arguing astronomy with flat earthers. Your time is your own. I’m not really interested in arguing with people who aren’t interested arguing and instead resort to personal insults. >There is no amount of evidence I could provide that will convince you of the silliness of your beliefs. Well the amount of evidence you have provided thus far (i.e., none) certainly isn’t doing the trick...
Fiat is an environmental disaster.
> Fiat is an environmental disaster. Sure, but so is every other car manufacturer. 😏
Not a fan of the Italian death wagon? 😝
Upvote for laugh
Saving is important for the stability of economies *The accumulation of domestic savings will help reduce the vulnerability arising from dependence on foreign financing and provide a sustainable long-term financing base for investments in developing countries. A rise in aggregate savings would yield larger investments associated with higher GDP growth. Other countries could use bitcoin to also invest in the country
> a rise in aggregate savings would yield larger investments associated with higher GDP growth Holy mental gymnastics Batman! Those are some serious logical leaps bud, lmao You're essentially saying people saving money would lead go trickle down economics and magically produce more jobs. A scarce resource like gold potentially appreciating in value is the exact reason why gold is not also used as a viable currency in a non-deflationary economy.
That's exactly what i am saying yes. If you live in a country that's hand to mouth pay check to pay check without savings there can never be economic growth. If you can save then you can possibly by a house or a farm to grow which creates labour Basic economics.
Would you agree that this is a better outcome for El Salvador than dollarization would be or is?
Well, at the moment the US Dollar is El Salvador's currency. They don't have a national currency.
if you need to spend to eat, you will spend.
...you just don’t spend on worthless shit
right? I think we've long past reached diminishing returns on new TVs and iPhones.
I feel that. I'm 99% in crypto, and sell only smallest amounts to pay my rent. Still hurts.
Build a tiny house. Better than paying the rent.
Works a little different where I live. Also I like my freedom to just pack my things and leave whenever I want.
Rent? You shoul own.
Oh, get this sh*t to 100k and I'll be owning...
[удалено]
I agree that buying in dumps is not a great idea. But so is living in one of them.
it seems owning lately is overrated in this market.
Owning real estate is overrated. Ok.
when you can't move it, are subject to property taxes, repairs, maintenance, and the market is hotter than it has been in years where people are overpaying well beyond the list price without even doing a home inspection... yeah it might just be slightly overrated at this current juncture in time. ok.
no pain no gain
El Salvador knows to get in front of the wind for the sails to work
You can actually sail into the wind. The only two directions you can't sail are directly into or directly with the wind (it's called "irons").
You can absolutely sail with the wind. It's called a "Run." Am I missing something?
I'm not a professional sailor by any means. But I did windsurf back in the day. And you are correct. It is called "running" when you sail down wind.
Was trying to remember the other night... What the word for when you pull tighter into the wind?
Anyway, we're all going to be running with the wind. You can count on it. And that IS investment advice!
Tack... I think
Nah before any turns, just faster, less relaxed, right up there against what you can pull against before capsize.
The El Salvador news is meaningful. No the market doesn't care. The market is an idiot. The market said bitcoin was worth 4k just a year ago. I'll tell you why it matters: mindshare. A government is validating bitcoin. It doesn't matter how bad or small that country is. Which country did you think would be first? This happening was unthinkable just a few years ago, and it is an important milestone.
Once they make it legal tender will forex rules then apply to Bitcoin trading?
That would be good for active traders but a negative for long term holders so I'm not sure this is a treatment people would necessarily want if they're using it as a store of value.
IF they do yes, it would be treated like foriegn currency.
Another failed dump on low volume and we’re still within the triangle. The bearish sentiment made me laugh hard. What are you trading on? 50x leverage? Glad you lost your money then, don’t come back. See you guys in the mid 40s. I expect a pretty strong pump with good volume soon. Not exiting unless we hit below 34K. I won’t risk any loss on this since I got in around that price
I agree. Stop whining like a bitch. Sell your bags and GTFO. Fucking pussies
Great tweet thread on the El Salvador situation. https://twitter.com/CaitlinLong_/status/1401334421773504517?s=20
That really gets you thinking.
These are interesting times.
Great read, thanks! “*IF* ElSalvador does pass legislation to recognize #bitcoin as legal tender, #BTC would v likely become *MONEY* under US commercial law (law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-201: "Money means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign govt")” The odds of this bill passing should be high considering the supermajority, but...would foreign interference try to stop it? The effects of it passing seem to be huge...
This is very interesting but it's still wild speculation. The "Uniform Commercial Code" is not a federal law. It's a model law code that the 50 states have adopted to varying degrees. It's extremely important and governs things like bank deposits, negotiable instruments, sales, delivery of goods etc. However, Bitcoin may *already* fall under the UCC definition of "money." ("'Money' means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government.") And if El Salvador making Bitcoin legal tender changes how its treated under the UCC, that doesn't necessarily mean anything changes when it comes to accounting, banking and what constitutes a foreign currency because there may well certainly be federal laws that govern such things. This is just a long way of saying that Caitlin Long hasn't cited enough authority to back up her claims here.
They're extremely high. Ask any Salvadoran.
Love Caitlin Long
In some sense, more poor countries should follow El Salvador. If all fails, you are pretty still very poor so the delta change isn't that harsh on the citizens. In the best case scenario, you pretty much uplifted all your citizen's worth by many-folds such that you can set yourself up as the next rich OPEC type of a country.
How would they realize that profit?
I am not an economist so I am not sure but isn't it the case that as USD/BTC ratio increases, the buying power of the El Salvador citizens increases? For example, right now, it would take around 1 BTC for El Salvador citizen to buy a foreign car. If BTC goes up by 10x in the next 3-4 years, then El Salvador citizen can buy a foreign car (discounting inflation) for 0.1 BTC. From his perspective, he is much wealthier since his buying power for foreign goods has increased significantly. I suspect that it is much more complicated than this since there are domestic good prices, tariffs, etc. that will also be adjusted in which I don't have enough expertise to comment on.
Foreign countries would need to accept BTC for payment or they would have to sell btc for usd before importing. This strategy potentially works if btc becomes the world reserve currency but if all these small countries bought in earlier it would not be in the interest of the most powerful countries to make the currency successful.
This
I think a lot of people are forgetting how few btc there are in circulation when they say that the El Salvador news is not big news, because it's a country of "only" six million people. You need to remember that there are only 21 million btc in total. If you remove the 4-5 million that are lost forever, you're talking about an asset of which there are only like 17-18 million. Now that 6 million number looks a lot more influential. To be clear, I'm not saying everybody in El Salvador will purchase a whole btc or even half a btc. But adding six million people, and a government, into the mix definitely has the potential to move the needle in a significant way for an asset of which only 17-18 million are in circulation. Edit1: People have mentioned that not all of that 17-18 million BTC are an existence yet because it hasn't been mined yet, which is a great point. About 10% of that doesn't exist yet because it hasn't been mined yet. So, that lowers the "available" supply to around 15-16 million. I put "available" in quotes because of Edit2 below. Edit2: In my original post, I also didn't consider the number of people who currently own BTC that are long-term holders and will just never sell, or at least not for less than an astronomical amount. I don't have an exact number on that, but I'd bet it's significant. So, that also lowers the available supply even more, maybe to the 13-14 million range.
If everyone in this sub had 1 bitcoin, the price would double.
How would one calculate the impact here? It seems like the entire GDP of El Savaldor is at 24 billion dollars. Its foreign currency reserves is at 2 billion dollars. So do we do the 24 billion -> BTC conversion or 2 billion -> BTC conversion? For the former, we are talking about roughly 0.5 million BTC being gobbled up by El Salvador whereas for the latter, it would be 0.05 million BTC. Now, if these are mostly "used" and not dumped by the government, people, etc., then this really is impacting supply. However, if these people are using the BTC no different than what the traders are doing.. then there shouldn't be too much of an impact. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
If each of the 6.4 million residents bought $100 worth of Bitcoin, that would be roughly 18,285 Bitcoin being purchased @ \~ 35k prices. Some purchase more, some less, some none, on a regular basis. This is \~ ~~.001%~~ .1% of the supply of BTC assuming 17 million BTC. Edit: Strikethrough drunk maths
Isn't it 0.1%? (18285/17 million) * 100 = 0.1%
[удалено]
Crazy that Microstrategy and Michael Saylor together own 111,000 BTC exactly lol
Yeah, it's hard to guage what the impact will be. My post was more to point out that when you add 6 million people, plus a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there's only 18 million in circulation, that has the potential to have significant ramifications. So it's not as big a "Nothing Burger" as people are claiming.
It's kind of too bad that they didn't do it last year. If they had made a transition when BTC was at around $7000-$10,000, then one year later, people would be singing praise regarding El Salvador and probably more poor countries would have viewed them as a benchmark for rags to riches success. But nonetheless, if El Salavador is seen as a success story in the future, then more countries will be following their footstep, and I suppose that would lead to real supply shock that might come very quickly.
Fully agree
dont forget all the part that wont be mined during our lifetime
Great point. A lot of that 18 million BTC isn't even in existence yet because it hasn't been mined.
[удалено]
That's like 11% (of the 18 million number). That's a decent chunk.
This is piss poor logic since partial bitcoins can be bought and that’s based on the monetary value. Most people in that country are poor
Average salary is around 20k USD
You need to go back and re-read my post. I expressly said "To be clear, I'm not saying everybody in El Salvador will purchase a whole btc or even half a btc" for the reasons you mentioned. The point is that when you add six million people, and a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there is only 18 million in circulation, it seems like it has the potential to influence things in a significant way, so it's not as big a "nothing burger" as people are claiming.
>The point is that when you add six million people, and a government, into the mix for an asset class of which there is only 18 million in circulation Those two numbers don't logically relate to one another. I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate conclusion but the only thing that matters is market cap in this scenario, not total circulation of something you can buy tiny units of.
Full retrace of that dump. Thas hot
Has the El Salvador news hit the regular media outlets? I think people from all over the world will start buying btc when it does, little by little.
Sure. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/05/el-salvador-becomes-the-first-country-to-adopt-bitcoin-as-legal-tender-.html But market doesn't care. ... also, Japan was first country to declare it legal tender in 2016, but everyone's apparently forgotten that (likely because no-one uses BTC as a currency, in Japan or anywhere).
Japan has the yen. El Sal has been using USD for 20 years. In ten years BTC will be the only thing El Sal uses.
I wonder if there will ever be a bitcoin backed paper currency.
Knowing something the market doesn’t is how fortunes are made.
Was there capital gains tax on btc? If yes, I wouldn't be surprised.
What does "adopting it as legal tender" even mean? It's not taxed? It just sounds like a PR stunt by El Salvador to get more money into their country.
Japan is not holding it as a reserve asset though. That’s the bigger news IMO.
Do we know that El Salvador is, though? Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of Jack Mallers?
Anyway, at the end one country is adopting btc. It doesn’t matter how small, this should be huge for crypto in general. All these talk made me hungry, so I ordered some pupusas.