Or are you saying some other entity (a bank) will help them with it?
And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.
Or are you saying some other entity (a bank) will help them with it?
And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.
> And if the latter, why would bitcoin be of help at all? A normal bank account would be simpler and less worrisome.
USD will still stay as the official currency of El Salvador. However now merchants have to accept also BTC. The hypotheses is that for example foreign businessmen will bring BTC in form of investments to the country, and people will send BTC via remittances. There is possibility that there isn't actual demand, but there is also possibility that El Salvador might get some serious economical boost because of this.
Whether or not it has spinoff economic benefits in terms of tourism or parking capital flight from other countries, you might be right, but that's not what was being discussed, right?
And this isn't the best argument for bitcoin. The best argument for it is the limited supply.
Considering the BBC has a dog in the fight, I believe that's probably why it doesn't mention the anti-inflationary argument that is the true reason a country would want to transact in BTC.
The USD is available to the US to make more of at any time. Imagine trying to run your government on someone else's currency. You'd always be at a disadvantage.
In the past the US hegemony has regime changed several countries that tried to use their own currency. (See Lybia)