If I’m reading this right, all economic agents that are technologically capable of receiving BTC as payment *must* accept it as payment — though instant conversion to USD is made available to anyone who doesn’t want to take price risk.
The state of El Salvador has just mandated that all merchants in a country of 6.4M people accept BTC (with instant conversion for those who don’t want price risk).
This is a legal flippening. From “banning” Bitcoin to mandating it.
How does this interact with the ethics of voluntarism?
So long as vendors can opt out by instantly liquidating, they still have free choice. The onus on them boils down to installing an app to receive BTC.
The move shifts El Salvador’s defaults to robustify against inflation.
I have to think more about the “mandatory crypto” world.
I think that flippening will also come to accounting and finance this decade, as on-chain cap tables and exchanges are simply better than their off-chain counterparts. See: balajis.com/why-india-shou…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As the rising third power in the world, India has the potential to be the center of a new Aligned Movement — an upgrade to the Non-Aligned Movement that aligns every neutral country behind Bitcoin and decentralized crypto protocols. balajis.com/add-crypto-to-…
Crucially, Crypto Capital isn't anti-American or anti-Chinese for that matter.
There are Woke Americans & Crypto Americans, Crypto Chinese & Communist Chinese.
The Crypto American is much closer to the average Chinese hodler than to Warren, Trump, or Xi Jinping.
N custodial wallets are hubs and the M citizens are spokes.
If a user of wallet 1 sends a transaction to a user of wallet 2, then the transfer looks instant on their screens.
Bulk settlement happens later on-chain between wallet 1 and 2.
Let’s say there are N=10 popular custodial wallets & they all do bulk settlement with each other every 24 hours. That’s N*(N-1)/2 = 45 pairwise on-chain Bitcoin L1 transactions per day, which is feasible.
Also, add in N daily on-chain transactions with the state’s Bitcoin fund.
The new listing decision is making a cryptocurrency your government’s legal tender.
Cryptonetworks are attaining the scale (millions of holders) & resources (billions of dollars) to start conducting foreign policy.
Like digital proto-states, negotiating with nation states.
There are advantages for both decentralized and semi-centralized networks in this process.
A decentralized network can just be adopted. Any country can just stockpile BTC.
But a semi-centralized network, or a DAO, can offer billions in listing fees to incent national adoption.
Companies like Tesla, Amazon, and Google have negotiated with governments for some time. There are carrots & sticks on both sides. And often there is a binding promise of investment, made by a (centralized) CEO.
Cryptonetworks can now do similar things with on-chain commitments.
If this is true, then a small country like Tuvalu (which gets a big chunk of revenue from the .tv domain name) could declare #BTC (and ETH!) to be legal tender.
The benefits would easily be worth billions.
So: could we legally crowdfund a prize for the first country to do this?
“Under the current deal…Verisign pays Tuvalu around $5 million per year for the right to administer .tv. For a nation whose annual domestic revenues tend to hover around $60 million, this is a substantial benefit.” washingtonpost.com/video-games/20…