Bitcoin Italia podcast made a nice
interview with Samson Mow.
They discussed a lot of the Bitcoin Bonds.
- They were delayed primarily by the lack of legislation. Legislation was delayed because of ES need a new pension law first, then the crime emergency led to other delays
- They are going to be issued by El Salvador, not by “La Geo”. This is a new announcements.
- The situation is quite fluid.
The bitcoin community should be concerned about El Salvador because this nation is Bitcoin's ambassador.
Surely, you seem to be exaggerating.. El Savador is Bitcoin's ambassador? I can understand that there is some symbolic aspects in regards to El Salvador taking on some pretty heavy mantle in some of its bitcoin related projects including but not limited to the actually successfully implementing Bitcoin as legal tender and then aspects of the Volcano bond that they have not yet issued, but considering ways that they would use the funds raised through the Volcano bond money.
Issues like crime emergencies and global economic challenges might be unforseen, but not backing a policy with the necessary parliamentary legislation before announcement is a great blunder.
Again, you seem to be exaggerating. it seems that El Salvador has delayed its volcano bond issuance for possibly more reasons than mere lack of legislation.. even though the lack of legislation could be a kind of part of the way of explaining why they are delaying in their issuance.
Also, I doubt that there is any "do or die" here, whether we are referring to if the Volcano bond actually ends up issuing as it had been originally proposed or if other aspects of El Salvador's legal tender implementation starts to fall apart in various ways. In some ways, we likely can already consider El Salvador to have some levels of success in terms of what has been accomplished so far in terms of showing some possible paths forward with bitcoin and also attracting quite a bit of attention to the bitcoin matter... so still a work in progress to watch how some of the details (including ups and downs) are continuing to unravel.
El Salvador should be careful about it's pronouncements on Bitcoin policies and projects. This is because delays or failures of these projects would deter other nations from adoption.
You believe that is how the world works? Sounds a little crazy to me that you seem to be hinging on some kind of projection that El Salvador has to achieve some level of perfection, otherwise nations are going to be scared to get involved in bitcoin. Surely, every single year in bitcoin, we have greater and greater levels of knowledge regarding bitcoin spreading to all kinds of people in the world, whether politicians or other folks in society - and even ongoing growth of bitcoin's financialization, and so in that regard, there are likely going to continue be folks considering ways that bitcoin might be adopted or ways that spheres of their influence (whether on a company level, personal level, or even governmental level) might start to employ aspects of bitcoin within their balance sheet or how they operate.
You presumption of do or die is coming off as weak, and sure some countries are going to be scared and/or hesitant regarding whether to implement bitcoin and in what ways to attempt to do it, too.
We commend President Bekele for all his efforts but proposed policies must be consistent with legislation before announcement.
First, you are employing the royal we? or you are trying to project some kind of authority in this matter?
Second, I doubt that there is any kind of order that things need to be done, even if you might be correct that some approaches might have potential to be more effective than others.
Samson Mow's clarification that the bond would be issued by El Salvador would increase the degree of confidence of bond holders. Mow also stated that the government can improve the acceptance of bitcoin by paying salaries with it.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with those points, and for sure, if El Salvador gets to actual issuance of the bond, and is able to raise the $1 billion as projected within the bond, then surely more innovations (and possible experimentations) could result from that.. and just the possible issuance of the bond has a lot of innovations within itself - even if the other innovative subsequent approaches do not end up getting employed.
For me the Bitcoin city doesn't thrill me, except this project has more economic benefit to El Salvador.
Surely whether such bitcoin city is reasonable/feasible is going to be something that we will find out, in the event that matters continue to progress - and of course, there is likely some kind of a need to outline a potentially reasonable/feasible vision in order to inspire investors.
I have not been to El Salvador but Pierce indicated that it is underdeveloped and has high rate of illiteracy.
Oh gawd.. Brock Pierce as our supposed El Salvador expert? Even Brock (that dweeb) is humble enough to admit that he does not know much about El Salvador (he does it in that interview that you wrongly cited below..
here is the proper cite)
Instead of spending this money on a flamboyant bitcoin city, it could be channelled to education.
Now you are a bond issuing expert? What makes you believe that El Salvador would necessarily be limited to ONLY issuing one bond (that is if they are able to get the first one issued)? Education is priority one in El Salvador.. Ok..
This is because education is a veritable tool for the spread of the gospel of bitcoin.
I am sure that there are a variety of ways that progress towards "education" can be made... but no, you want to tell us that you have the answers about how to accomplish the matter?
Brock Pierce retreated that politicians cannot be trusted. But bitcoin is above politics because it has the capacity to free the world from the manipulations of politician.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5392417.new#newFillippone please don't stop posting these interviews.
Of course, there is some truth in terms of bitcoin being more neutral than politicians, and of course, politicians are people, so some people have more integrity than others, and of course, we already know that bitcoin does have a lot more objectivity in it.. at least in terms of being very difficult to change (perhaps not impossible, but surely difficult as we have also witnessed several times and the 2017 forkening matter is often used as an example where very powerful businesses had failed to change bitcoin in certain kinds of ways including governance and software related to block size limits).
Anti Bitcoin politicians and economists would always use El Salvador as a reference point.
This is correct: as Samson Mow once said in one of his interviews: "the world is watching us, we cannot fail this experiment!". This means every anti bitcoin politician around the world will take every glitch in the El Salvador implementation of the Bitcoin Law as a failure of Bitcoin itself.
I agree with your overall point, fillippone, but I think that it is worth reiterating (of course, you said it earlier) that bitcoin is likely to succeed whether or not El Salvador succeeds with bitcoin as part of its package of offerings.
Of course, there is some truth in the matter that there is going to be spinning going on from politicians, financial institutions, status quo rich, and both anti-bitcoin and pro-bitcoin too. And bitcoin's adoption does have a kind of ongoing battle that is going on simultaneously in a lot of geographical places.. not just in and around El Salvador's way of adopting it, so far.
Some of the ongoing battles are going to be out in the open and other battles seem to be happening behind the scenes.. and with any battles, they have informational and physical components... Some of the informational components can end up scaring the shit out of newbie normies (and they get confused as fuck in terms of not even knowing what is bitcoin, or what is the difference between bitcoin and shitcoins or whatever other ways that the bitcoin topic is obfuscated), and surely physical components (such as bitcoin's ongoing adoption) are not going to NOT be affected by some of the ongoing informational battle angles (pro-bitcoin information and anti-bitcoin information).
For sure, each of us has to choose our own level of involvement in bitcoin whether we are buying it, accumulating it or HODLing it, and how much of our value that we feel psychologically and financially comfortable to allocate into bitcoin (time as well as money too) or whether we might consider it to be prudent to reallocate or to otherwise change our approach towards bitcoin investing of time, psychology and based on changed circumstances or changes in our perceptions of the circumstances.
