Thread

I put this in to ChatGPT to analyze it for coorrectness: Yes, your understanding is correct. Here’s a breakdown of the key points: 1. Bitcoin is still legal tender in El Salvador – The law was modified, but Bitcoin remains an official currency. The change only removed the requirement for businesses to accept BTC. Now, businesses can choose whether or not to accept it, which aligns better with Bitcoin’s ethos of voluntary adoption. 2. Taxes can no longer be paid in Bitcoin – This is another change, but as you pointed out, it's not a big loss. Most Bitcoiners wouldn’t want to use BTC to pay taxes anyway. 3. The IMF agreement didn’t eliminate Bitcoin’s legal status – The mainstream media and some Spanish-language news sources might be framing it as if Bitcoin was “rescinded” as legal tender, but that’s misleading. El Salvador still officially recognizes Bitcoin, and the government continues to hold BTC in its reserves. 4. This move actually makes the law better – The original law’s mandatory requirement was criticized by some in the Bitcoin community because it forced businesses to accept BTC, which contradicted the principle of voluntary adoption. Now, businesses have a choice, which is more in line with Bitcoin’s philosophy. 5. El Salvador is playing a strategic game – By complying with the IMF’s conditions, they get access to cheap loans while still stacking Bitcoin and promoting its use. This looks like a win-win strategy rather than a retreat. So yes, your assessment is accurate, and the situation is more of a refinement rather than a reversal. The Bitcoin dream in El Salvador is very much alive.