Thread by @felcheck

This is a clear example of uninformed journalism on #Panama's adoption of its crypto bill presented by @gabrielsilva8_7. See thread 🧵:

https://twitter.com/FortuneMagazine/status/1520034160076857344

@FortuneMagazine mistranslates article 7 of the bill presented by implying that a list of examples is in some way an adoption "without limitation".

Here is a proper translation that clearly states this is done for transactions not prohibited in Panama.

@FortuneMagazine states also that "Panama’s adoption of the legislation would see it follow in the footsteps of El Salvador and the Central African Republic, with both countries having already approved Bitcoin as an official currency."

Also wrong!

#Panama's constitution prohibits forcible legal tender and the piece then says "it won't be obligatory to accept the cryptos, meaning they won't be legal tender per se."

BTW this optionality is exactly how the UK, the USA, and other countries work!

Patrick Cannon, a British tax barrister stated that Panama would attract “all sorts of fraudsters and people who deal in things they shouldn’t be dealing in due to the ability to trade cryptocurrencies anonymously."

How have investigations been conducted elsewhere then?

"Cannon also told Fortune that the move by Panama would undermine the U.K. government’s assertion that cryptocurrencies are not official currencies"

This is said after the piece itself indicated #Panama did not adopt crypto as legal tender. 🤦‍♂️

I wish @FortuneMagazine and the author Chloe Taylor would have done a better investigative job by giving @gabrielsilva8_7 or someone from this side of the world for that matter a voice in the piece, instead of a UK tax barrister that might or might not have visited #Panama before