Your back down to earth reading of the news coming from El Salvador πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡»:

1. Bitcoin Law makes it mandatory for merchants to accept BTC, *IF* customers offer it as means of payment.

2. No incentives are created to use Bitcoin as legal tender; most Salvadorans with access

to bitcoin will most likely be die hard HODLers.

3. The Bitcoin Law doesn't actually address how the country will use Bitcoin to promote financial inclusion. It doesn't even make it clear where the country stands in terms of digital inclusion.

4. There are no rules and/or regulations around Bitcoin infrastructure providers (exchanges, custodians, market participants, btc payment service providers, payment dispute mechanisms, derivatives, etc). The whole landscape looks like the perfect honeypot for cyber gangs.

5. Will anyone cover citizens' losses in case they loose access to their Bitcoins? Will there be any kind of insurance/protection program? β€” This is in line with the aforementioned lack of incentives to adopt Bitcoin as an instrument for payments and/or savings.

6. Has anyone ever asked what would actually happen if Bitcoin gains ground vs. USD as legal tender and gets adopted by a significant portion of the economy? β€” High-frequency traders would essentially be ably to manipulate the whole Salvadoran economy in a daily basis.

7. How are merchants supposed to deal with BTC price variations in terms of product pricing, as well as in terms of financial/accounting/tax recordkeeping. β€”This'll be a huge pain for merchants.

Promising simple solutions for difficult problems is what populism is about.


β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Arturo Portilla

Arturo Portilla Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Arturo_P_A

24 May
I'm not a huge supporter of how finance is regulated, but paradoxically, I tend to believe that we won't enjoy the full benefits of blockchain/crypto until the tech is innovatively employed by regulated entities (e.g. open finance, account portability, self-sovereign ID, etc.).
There's another angle in this paradox, which is: blockchain/crypto founders usually want to avoid all the hurdles and costs associated with regulated services (e.g. finance), which is why there's so much stuff happening in DeFi, as it's perceived as a regulation-free safe harbor.
What most blockchain/crypto founders seem to be failing to properly address, though, is that they're favouring short-term opportunities with limited growth potential over mid/long term opportunities with much juicier prospective growth rates.
Read 16 tweets
29 Mar
After reading 6 or 7 articles about this announcement, I think I finally got to weed out the unsubstantiated noise and actually understand how the USDC/USD settlement and payment process on Visa's treasury will work.

1. Crypto. com users who hold USDC and have a Visa card attached to their Crypto. com account, make USDC payments to Visa merchants.

2. USDC payments are cleared, but funds not immediately transferred by Crypto. com to Visa (i.e. settled).

3. At the end of the day, Crypto. com sends a USDC batch transfer over Ethereum to Visa's Eth address held on Anchorage, hence settling its intra-day payment obligations. Visa is, then, taking some credit risk (which will translate into costs for Visa partners and merchants).

Read 12 tweets
26 Mar
I don't know if it's possible under US law, but in case intervention is allowed for #XRPHolders in SEC v Ripple, SEC commissioner @HesterPeirce should file an amicus brief, as it'd be THE opportunity to stand for her vision and push for new regulatory policy within the SEC. Image
Imagine the impact that having an SEC commissioner opining against the SEC's own actions, would provoke on the judge.

Hester Pierce has published a variety of communications with the clear intention to show her dissension with the crypto enforcement actions launched by the SEC.
It's time for her to take the next step and follow a path that will actually make the SEC's high-level decision makers to understand her views and act accordingly. The innovation momentum will not last forever, or at least, not in the US.
Read 4 tweets
8 Mar
I'm perplexed that neither @coincenter nor @BlockchainAssn have issued a single statement on SEC v. Ripple (let alone fight the industry-harming interpretation of securities laws), despite this case CLEARLY falling within these advocacy groups' missions [attached for reference]. ImageImage
I see no single strategic reason, beyond perhaps management bias, for these blockchain/crypto [more like BTC/ETH] advocates, to not fight the SEC's harmful predilection to regulate crypto through reckless enforcement actions that destabilize the industry as a whole.
The same goes for @DigAssetMarkets.

These advocacy groups describe themselves as entities created with the sole purpose to help creating adequate regulatory frameworks for digital assets, yet they choose to relinquish the single most important opportunity to shape the landscape. Image
Read 16 tweets
5 Jan

While the entire US crypto industry (exchanges, funds, associations, PsPs, lobbyists, etc) is currently focused on fighting the AML rules proposed by FinCEN, the XRP Community has been left ALONE fighting the securities battle FOR THE BENEFIT of the whole industry.

The entire US crypto industry (excluding the XRP Community) has been miserably failing to acknowledge that, until now, all the SEC has had for purposes of characterising a blockchain-based token as a security under the Securities Act of 1933 ...

... is a 75 year-old judicial precedent (i.e. 1946 Howey Test), and some non-binding internal guidance. That's it. Nothing more. No clear federal regulations and no clear binding precedents.

Read 10 tweets
25 Dec 20
Just finished reading the SEC v. Ripple Complaint β€” Most of the allegations in re. XRP being a security are built around the false idea that investors bought an asset that had no 'use' beyond speculative purposes.

This is exactly where their whole case cracks up.

Ripple has to properly document and demonstrate all the 'uses' made available by the XRPL since the beginning of times. Some of them include:

- Immediate and cheap peer-to-peer transfers (everyone could be its own ODL since XRPL was first launched).

- Every XRP investor has had access to a fully functional decentralized exchange since the very beginning, being able to use XRP to trade against a variety of IOUs.

- XRP has been a very useful instrument for payments since it came into existence.

Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!