Bitcoin Legal Tender in Central African Republic

[348Judah]

The Sango app has already been made available for users across the world to engaged with the use of their apps in accessing their services, the tokenization of their natural resources is one if the vital decision for their coin utility.



 they seem to embark on which could also bring a boost on their economy as the world can have access through their services via the Sango app from anywhere around the world, they also considers the abundance of the riverine regions for the generation of a renewable energy for bitcoin mining.

 

i believe with all these development things could go well with Central African Republic bitcoin adoption as it has in place the conducive environment created through the launch of Sango bitcoin hub in boosting it economy.

[1714228007]

1714228007

[1714228007]

1714228007

[1714228007]

1714228007

[estenity]

who can explain the interest of the "new" metaverse ?

[stompix]

~

I would guess that metaverse should be priority if you are building a proper game. I mean don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be something that is major and suddenly like "this is better than the real world!!!" type of deal, but it ain't a bad world to live in neither. We all remember the talks and hype about "ready player one movie is becoming a reality" and then we all saw that roblox/minecraft type of metaverse shit and realized how long we still have for that.

Game?

The Central African Republic is currently grappling with a severe food insecurity crisis, with estimates putting the number of severely food insecure persons at almost 2 million in April 2021 (more than 40% of the population). The chronic malnutrition rate is also extremely high and exceeds the 30% average.

Chronic malnutrition in one-third of a population and some think of building a game?
How the hell will those people even play that game, how they would afford anything that would connect them to it, how would they even think of playing when they are at risk of dying of hunger?

https://www.wfp.org/countries/central-african-republic
Is this a good gamer base?

79%of people live in poverty
27%of the population is displaced
3 million require humanitarian assistance
45% are food insecure
4.7 million population

they seem to embark on which could also bring a boost on their economy as the world can have access through their services via the Sango app from anywhere around the world,

Why would the world use an application based and controlled by a government that tomorrow might be overthrown or in the worst-case scenario but still plausible the whole country won't be there anymore? I'm not even mentioning corruption and how "secure' your funds will be in a centralized app run by a wanna-be dictator.

Fillippone should go there..
Fortune favors the brave.

It also kills the stupid! 

[blue_hurricanger]

Seeing how JayJuanGee talked about El Salvador's fucked up and introduced Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador govt invested a huge amount of Bitcoin when the country was on the verge of debt default. Hey, would you look at that, plenty of African countries are in the danger zone too (pic).
The last thing the African govt needs to worry about is Bitcoin and more about getting their population out of poverty, just saying. Or at least, use blockchain to solve real problems like food, water, and education,...

[JayJuanGee]

Seeing how JayJuanGee talked about El Salvador's fucked up and introduced Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador govt invested a huge amount of Bitcoin when the country was on the verge of debt default. Hey, would you look at that, plenty of African countries are in the danger zone too (pic).
The last thing the African govt needs to worry about is Bitcoin and more about getting their population out of poverty, just saying. Or at least, use blockchain to solve real problems like food, water, and education,...

I am not sure if you are misstating me or not.

I surely would not make the conclusion that any country should eliminate the inclusion of bitcoin into any of their plans forward merely because they are in a precarious financial position.   Bitcoin is a financial instrument that likely could help countries that are in precarious financial positions, so the devil is likely in the details regarding how to employ it and how much, not so much wether.. but in any case, it is likely good for any country, local government, institution or individual to get their finances in some kind of order before they sloppily get into new things (such as bitcoin) without having some kind of a budget plan and then other considerations as well.. .which may be infrastructure and also various kinds of ways that their already set up in terms of types of industries or agriculture and of course, we talked about internet, electricity and/or cell phones. Surely some other considerations too.. but I doubt that bitcoin would need to be eliminated from consideration merely because finances are not so good in the country or there are other lackings as already mentioned.

[Zlantann]

Seeing how JayJuanGee talked about El Salvador's fucked up and introduced Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador govt invested a huge amount of Bitcoin when the country was on the verge of debt default. Hey, would you look at that, plenty of African countries are in the danger zone too (pic).
The last thing the African govt needs to worry about is Bitcoin and more about getting their population out of poverty, just saying. Or at least, use blockchain to solve real problems like food, water, and education,...

Africa might have a large population of poor inhabitants but not all Africans are poor. Most of the countries mentioned in your post have some of the highest Bitcoiners in the world. Nigeria is an example of the Bitcoin revolution regardless of government restrictions. It is also very important to state that Bitcoin adoption would not necessarily need a perfect condition to function. The government doesn't need to build a special internet facility or electric power plant for Bitcoin operations, existing facilities can be used. And as the economic condition of the country improve, Bitcoin transactions would become better and popular. Food, water, and education are not the cardinal challenges of Africa but corruption is its main disease.

[blue_hurricanger]

Seeing how JayJuanGee talked about El Salvador's fucked up and introduced Bitcoin as legal tender. El Salvador govt invested a huge amount of Bitcoin when the country was on the verge of debt default. Hey, would you look at that, plenty of African countries are in the danger zone too (pic).
The last thing the African govt needs to worry about is Bitcoin and more about getting their population out of poverty, just saying. Or at least, use blockchain to solve real problems like food, water, and education,...

I am not sure if you are misstating me or not.

I surely would not make the conclusion that any country should eliminate the inclusion of bitcoin into any of their plans forward merely because they are in a precarious financial position.   Bitcoin is a financial instrument that likely could help countries that are in precarious financial positions, so the devil is likely in the details regarding how to employ it and how much, not so much wether.. but in any case, it is likely good for any country, local government, institution or individual to get their finances in some kind of order before they sloppily get into new things (such as bitcoin) without having some kind of a budget plan and then other considerations as well.. .which may be infrastructure and also various kinds of ways that their already set up in terms of types of industries or agriculture and of course, we talked about internet, electricity and/or cell phones. Surely some other considerations too.. but I doubt that bitcoin would need to be eliminated from consideration merely because finances are not so good in the country or there are other lackings as already mentioned.

I mean, surely there are more other important things to do than chasing over the crypto hype, even to the metaverse crap. Bitcoin doesn't need that govt's support, stamp some paper and say we'll use it. Before the govt came, users are already using it anyway. All seem like a ploy to drain more govt's budget over something that meets little resistance because Bitcoin was cool and the trend now. Similar to the El Salvador case that people are quiet down compared to back then when everyone in bitcointalk hailed it as the second Christ coming.
Pure corruption from El Salvador and the next will be the African countries but hey, it was Bitcoin 'cool and chill' now so the public won't bat an eye.

Africa might have a large population of poor inhabitants but not all Africans are poor. Most of the countries mentioned in your post have some of the highest Bitcoiners in the world. Nigeria is an example of the Bitcoin revolution regardless of government restrictions. It is also very important to state that Bitcoin adoption would not necessarily need a perfect condition to function. The government doesn't need to build a special internet facility or electric power plant for Bitcoin operations, existing facilities can be used. And as the economic condition of the country improve, Bitcoin transactions would become better and popular. Food, water, and education are not the cardinal challenges of Africa but corruption is its main disease.

Yes, every talk about the majority of Africans being poor, it's always the rich kid who comes and says 'what about us?'. It is like a class where the majority of students have low scores. When the teachers want to address that but there was that kid with the A+ score comes and blocks the initial since it hurt his pride. If you still don't get why people talk about Africans being poor, think it was to marginalize African people while you stigma the poor and deny their existence, their problem then sorry, I think we are done here.
Hey, at least I agree with you about the problem of Africa wasn't just the necessities but also corruption.

[fillippone]

El Salvador govt invested a huge amount of Bitcoin when the country was on the verge of debt default. Hey, would you look at that, plenty of African countries are in the danger zone too (pic).

I hardly doubt that the bitcoin investment put El Salvador materially at risk of default more than they were before starting their investment.
Of course the Bitcoin Investment is putting more pressure on them, given the "unfriendliness" of the actors supposed to help them in the recovery process, namely the IMF.
But, of course, better to struggle by yourself, than to be helped by the suffocating hand of the IMF.

[stompix]

Africa might have a large population of poor inhabitants but not all Africans are poor. Nigeria is an example of the Bitcoin revolution regardless of government restrictions.

You have to love the logic on this one, you simply have to! And?
Not all Africans are poor so some will buy coins and the others who are dirt poor will...still be dirt poor and with no coins!
Where is the economical revolution in this case?

The government doesn't need to build a special internet facility or electric power plant for Bitcoin operations, existing facilities can be used.

Yup, those powerplants that supply energy to :

15.5% of the country's population (as of 2020) has access to electricity.In rural areas, the share was 2.3%

or that generates 171.40 m kWh a year.
Let me translate this for you in hashrate, a new S19Pro burns 28,470 kWh a year, the entire country would be able to support with all the electricity produced 6 000 of those! Or, an astonishing 0.3% of the global hashrate if all the country would basically should down every single other energy consumer, do you realize about what kind of country we're talking here???

I surely would not make the conclusion that any country should eliminate the inclusion of bitcoin into any of their plans forward merely because they are in a precarious financial position.   Bitcoin is a financial instrument that likely could help countries that are in precarious financial positions, so the devil is likely in the details

Exactly, the details, that a lot don't want to hear because it breaks the mantra of the pure angelic savior.

Their only escape via Bitcoin from their precarious financial position is for Bitcoin to gain value, there is no other way, but in order for Bitcoin to grow and help those countries, there is a need for a second buyer with larger pockets, which ironically will make them stand again at the mercy of the rich countries. It's pretty easy to understand, quite clearly Bitcoin going down won't help anyone, Bitcoin going up will not happen if there isn't someone willing to buy at a higher price, and there are no poor persons able to do that.

Ironic, isn't it? Their escape from poverty means again depending on someone with deeper pockets, and we all know which those countries are!

but in any case, it is likely good for any country, local government, institution or individual to get their finances in some kind of order before they sloppily get into new things (such as bitcoin) without having some kind of a budget plan and then other considerations as well.. .which may be infrastructure and also various kinds of ways that their already set up in terms of types of industries or agriculture and of course, we talked about internet, electricity and/or cell phones.

There is something else needed before all that, but since I already know it will piss a lot of people, I'll just say go watch "empire of dust".
That needs to be taken care of first.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

I mean, surely there are more other important things to do than chasing over the crypto hype, even to the metaverse crap. Bitcoin doesn't need that govt's support, stamp some paper and say we'll use it.

I suppose that I agree with you regarding the quite likely vacuous nature of crypto hype and metaverse crap.. I am not much of a fan for either of those in terms of bringing real and/or practical value, but your seemingly ongoing mixing bitcoin into such framework seems to show either that your thinking about bitcoin may well be quite foggy.

Let me talk a bit about bitcoin first before getting back to your seeming to mix up the ideas of bitcoin, crypto and metaverse.

Of course, bitcoin does not need any kind of top down support, whether governments, institutions, rich peeps, financial pumping tools or otherwise; however, so long as bitcoin continues to survive (an no reason to think that it is dying or shrinking), then it is going to end up affecting all segments of society sooner or later, and some segments will be sooner to adopt and/or get involved than others.  There may not be a whole hell of a lot that any of us can do about it, but that does not stop any of us trying to influence in various ways or even to consider our own involvement whether that is with the investment of time, energies and/or ideas contributions.  Governments are public institutions so surely you have the right to try to affect how they are involved in various kinds of ways, and there are so many governments around the world that are going to be making a variety of choices in terms of how fast or slowly they want to get into bitcoin, and in the end, bitcoin gives few shits and does not need them, but they need bitcoin.. sooner or later.. .and in that regard, it is probably better for the vast majority of governments to figure out some ways to get involved in bitcoin sooner rather than later, whether financially investing into it, building infrastructure around it or getting involved in the information space in terms of learning and teaching about it.

Regarding your seeming ongoing convolution of bitcoin with crypto and metaverse and all kinds of nonsense like that... They are not the same thing.. Sure there are all kinds of shitcoins and shitcoin projects and ICOS, Defi, NFTs and blah blah blah scams. .metaverse and its game tokens.. You do not need to wrap them up with your thinking about bitcoin, even though bitcoin does allow for those various scams to be built on it and around it, and surely much of that crap and those scams would go away if bitcoin were to go away.  The facts that scams exists is not the base case for bitcoin.. and bitcoin is not even built in order to facilitate scams (even though it seems that ethereum is built in that kind of a way).  Anyhow, it just seems to me that you are getting mixed up about bitcoin if you start out by considering it as a bunch of scams, when the base case for bitcoin is a sound money system... and those other scams and baloney are built around it.

Before the govt came, users are already using it anyway.

Yes,  of course.  Governments seem to ONLY be recently wanting to get into bitcoin.. and they are barely just coming into bitcoin.

All seem like a ploy to drain more govt's budget over something that meets little resistance because Bitcoin was cool and the trend now. Similar to the El Salvador case that people are quiet down compared to back then when everyone in bitcointalk hailed it as the second Christ coming.
Pure corruption from El Salvador and the next will be the African countries but hey, it was Bitcoin 'cool and chill' now so the public won't bat an eye.

You seem to be quite mixed up here.

El Salvador seems to be attempting to adopt a bitcoin first approach, and so far really not getting involved in shitcoins.  Since they are less than 1 year after the implementation, it seems to be way too early to know how all of their implementation and various developments around bitcoin are going to play out in El Salvador.

The Central African Republic approach seems much more amorphous, and there are some difficulties to understand and appreciate how they could even be attempting to take any kind of reasonable (and non scam) approach, when they do not even seem to be focusing on bitcoin.. So far, based on information so far available, and even their own limited promotional materials, it does seem difficult to take the CAR approach in any kind of serious way.. so yeah, they may well just be getting caught up in some scam angle approach that is not really seem to be practical for the people of CAR..

I surely would not make the conclusion that any country should eliminate the inclusion of bitcoin into any of their plans forward merely because they are in a precarious financial position.   Bitcoin is a financial instrument that likely could help countries that are in precarious financial positions, so the devil is likely in the details

Exactly, the details, that a lot don't want to hear because it breaks the mantra of the pure angelic savior.

Their only escape via Bitcoin from their precarious financial position is for Bitcoin to gain value, there is no other way,

That number go up technology is the way bitcoin was built.. whether we like it or not.. it is part of the incentive structure built into bitcoin's ability to transmit information (and for the first time information that can have value attached at the same time without a third party and without an ability to double spend it).

but in order for Bitcoin to grow and help those countries, there is a need for a second buyer with larger pockets, which ironically will make them stand again at the mercy of the rich countries.

Bitcoin no doesn't work like that.

You are describing a ponzi scheme.. bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme.

Bitcoin has value in and of itself, and there are a lot of ways that can be shown and argued.

Within bitcoin's so far 13.5 years of existence, we can already see that it is being adopted from a variety of angles.. seeming to be more from the bottom up in the beginning years and more recently there are more top down forces, and not all of them friendly to bitcoin - especially if they assess bitcoin as a threat, but even if they assess bitcoin as a threat, the longer bitcoin exists the more and more resources they have to attempt to throw at it in order to attempt to battle it.. so with the passage of time, all of bitcoin's network effects continue to grown in Lindy effect style - tick tock the next block, and sure there can be set backs and intensive battles, but the incentives built into bitcoin seem to cause more possible benefits to work within it rather than to work against it.. whether we are talking about individuals, institutions and/or governments.

It's pretty easy to understand, quite clearly Bitcoin going down won't help anyone, Bitcoin going up will not happen if there isn't someone willing to buy at a higher price, and there are no poor persons able to do that.

It does not really matter if we want bitcoin to go down or up.. it is already built to go up...

Yeah, in the short term we cannot really tell how long various battles are going to last, and the powers that be (and the bearwhales) do want to try to push its price down as far as they can get it to go and to keep it down for as long as they can, but so far in bitcoin's history, it has been frequently shown that they lose those kinds of battles on a fairly regular basis... so bitcoin's price goes back up and that may well be part of the explanation regarding why it explodes upwardly from time to time (because it had been held down too far and for too long).

Sure you are free to have your theories about bitcoin being pumped and that it is price is above value and all of those kinds of ways of looking at it, but in the end, for your own good, it would be better that you at least maintain some kind of ongoing investing stake in it - sooner rather than later.. ..

Ironic, isn't it? Their escape from poverty means again depending on someone with deeper pockets, and we all know which those countries are!

We are looking at this matter differently because I am not presuming that any bitcoin investment theory is merely going to put poor countries back to the position that they were previously.

but in any case, it is likely good for any country, local government, institution or individual to get their finances in some kind of order before they sloppily get into new things (such as bitcoin) without having some kind of a budget plan and then other considerations as well.. .which may be infrastructure and also various kinds of ways that their already set up in terms of types of industries or agriculture and of course, we talked about internet, electricity and/or cell phones.

There is something else needed before all that, but since I already know it will piss a lot of people, I'll just say go watch "empire of dust".
That needs to be taken care of first.

I am not really into homework assignments.  I am not going to disagree that some locations may well have fewer resources to work from than other locations, so are we going to proclaim that their hands are tied, and that they cannot get their finances in order in order to potentially be able to advantage their situation from bitcoin? They are supposed to just to give up?

[fillippone]

A bit of update about CAR adoption:

Central African Republic’s crypto coin launch underperforms expectations
Jonny Tickle

(bna IntelliNews)

The Central African Republic’s attempt to use its own digital currency to solve economic problems has gotten off to a slow start, amid questions about the wider economic situation.

The official currency of the CAR remains the CFA Franc, while it has also been recognised Bitcoin as legal tender, the second country, following El Salvador, to do so.

Earlier in July, the country launched Sango, a new government-backed crypto hub that will be home to crypto-related businesses and offer favourable tax policies.

Of the initial $21mn Sango Coin on offer, only $1.09mn had been sold by Tuesday morning (July 26), Reuters reports.  'A crypto project not selling out its initial mint is a poor sign,' Joseph Edwards, head of financial strategy at Solrise, a crypto investment firm, is quoted as saying.

The CAR, one of the world's poorest countries, announced in April that it would create a digital coin project to help boost the economy. It seeks to raise almost $1bn over the next year.

President Faustin-Archange Touadéra described Sango as a place for a “common cryptocurrency and an integrated capital market that could stimulate commerce and sustain growth.”

According to an estimate from 2020, nine out of 10 Central Africans do not have access to the internet, a prerequisite for using Bitcoin, the BBC reported.

The news comes from Bloomberg, relaunching an Intellinews piece. I wasn’t able to find the original news on intellinews website.
So, pinch of salt.

[Rikafip]

The news comes from Bloomberg, relaunching an Intellinews piece. I wasn’t able to find the original news on intellinews website.
So, pinch of salt.

I see bunch of other websites sharing the same news, but honestly I would be surprised if result was any different. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that they even managed to sell that considering Sango Coin ridiculous tokenomics (looking like a 2017 ICO) and the reputation of the country issuing it.

I also read that they had top lower minimum investment from $500 to $100 which also says a lot about the interest.

[stompix]

Bitcoin no doesn't work like that.
You are describing a ponzi scheme.. bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme.

No, what I'm describing is every investment on this planet, from shares to real estate to precious metals.
From the very basic definition of an investment, which has the final goal of generating either income or appreciation, I think we both know appreciation means a rise in value.
Now excuse my English but how the f* word would something increase in value if there isn't somebody paying more than you have paid for?

I don't see the car that I bought for 30k and I could barely sell for 10k increasing in value, I don't see bitcoin cash increasing in value and I don't see houses in Detroit increasing value, maybe because nobody pays more and more for them?

Bitcoin has value in and of itself, and there are a lot of ways that can be shown and argued.

Bitcoin's properties were the same when Bitcoin was 1$ and will be the same when it will be 1 million.
From 60k to 2k nothing has changed, neither in the protocol nor in the way it works, what happened is that the basic laws of a free market kicked in and when the supply out with the demand then the price goes down. Just how the opposite happened for years when people were willing to pay more for one bitcoin with each passing day.

Sure you are free to have your theories about bitcoin being pumped and that it is price is above value and all of those kinds of ways of looking at it, but in the end, for your own good, it would be better that you at least maintain some kind of ongoing investing stake in it - sooner rather than later.. ..

Because ....it will appreciate in value, right?
And how would I profit from this without somebody offering me more than what I paid for one coin?

We are looking at this matter differently because I am not presuming that any bitcoin investment theory is merely going to put poor countries back to the position that they were previously.

I didn't focus that reply solely on you but rather on the 40 pages and nearly one thousand posts on the same topic about Salvador which claim Salvador will get rich because they are buying coins now and those will appreciate in value. But in order for them to profit from their investment, again, they will need someone to buy that stash from them at a higher price, right?

Back to the Sango coin,

this thing doesn't match anything in the whitepaper

Market Coins 20.00% 4,200,000,000
Land Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 10 years locking period
Citizenship Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 5 years locking period
E-Residence Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 3 years locking period

So god knows what's happening there.

[Pujangga]

Many people say that currently only small countries want to legalize bitcoin, but I'm sure 5 or 10 years from now more and more countries will legalize bitcoin, this of course is a start and makes us have to be optimistic about the future of bitcoin.

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin no doesn't work like that.
You are describing a ponzi scheme.. bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme.

No, what I'm describing is every investment on this planet, from shares to real estate to precious metals.
From the very basic definition of an investment, which has the final goal of generating either income or appreciation, I think we both know appreciation means a rise in value.
Now excuse my English but how the f* word would something increase in value if there isn't somebody paying more than you have paid for?

You are likely not technically incorrect to say that there is price appreciation when someone chooses to pay more for any item, and at the same time there is importance in appreciating that some asset classes have greater levels of fundamental value than others, so if you are spinning a ponzi scheme angle, then it can sometimes end up coming off as not being a very genuine way of capturing ongoing value that is being built in bitcoin and not always reflected in the price.  We cannot know for sure value versus price, but surely price does tend to be amongst the strongest of indicators of value... even though in some assets the price will fluctuate greatly based on a variety of factors beside merely fundamental value... so in that regard, some folks will advantage from being able to understand and appreciate value that is not necessarily reflected in spot price.

I don't see the car that I bought for 30k and I could barely sell for 10k increasing in value, I don't see bitcoin cash increasing in value and I don't see houses in Detroit increasing value, maybe because nobody pays more and more for them?

Of course, different asset classes, products or services are going to have differing price movement dynamics that can depend upon a lot of factors that are particular to that asset class, product or service.  Bitcoin is pretty unique in terms of its having had created a paradigm shifting phenomenon that had never been seen previously and of course there are some forces at play that go beyond it's mere short-term utility, and even likely inspires reflections upon whether it may be a vehicle that facilitates the greatest wealth transfer in history.. and surely we could be in the early stages of that, and no "greatest wealth transfer" in history is going to go without either a battle or even confusion regarding what is bitcoin's contribution to society - or its use case, which can increasingly inspire folks to pay more and more attention to it, but not necessarily agree upon its value or even agree upon whether there might be needs to push it's price up or to push it down, and even with the great overleveraging that had blown up for several entities, including but not limited to Tera/Luna, Celsius, Voyager and even some of the bitcoin miners, - there are ramifications when bitcoin is being used in various kind of financialization ways that go beyond retail bets, but likely creates excitement for traders too.. and even excitement for long term holders to increase their position or just to get an entry point into BTC.

Bitcoin has value in and of itself, and there are a lot of ways that can be shown and argued.

Bitcoin's properties were the same when Bitcoin was 1$ and will be the same when it will be 1 million.
From 60k to 2k nothing has changed, neither in the protocol nor in the way it works, what happened is that the basic laws of a free market kicked in and when the supply out with the demand then the price goes down. Just how the opposite happened for years when people were willing to pay more for one bitcoin with each passing day.

I don't have any major disagreement with you on this point - even though of course, it does not hurt to point out that many of us likely know that there are some ongoing interesting aspects of bitcoin in which bitcoin's network effects continue to build, there is a kind of Lindy Effect that continues to make bitcoin stronger with blocks being produced every 10 minutes.. tick tock, the next block.. there is a kind of ongoing power in that in which bitcoin is likely getting ongoingly stronger with the passage of time.

Sure you are free to have your theories about bitcoin being pumped and that it is price is above value and all of those kinds of ways of looking at it, but in the end, for your own good, it would be better that you at least maintain some kind of ongoing investing stake in it - sooner rather than later.. ..

Because ....it will appreciate in value, right?
And how would I profit from this without somebody offering me more than what I paid for one coin?

Bitcoin remains a good hedge, and sure the basic premise is that it is likely to go up in value with the passage of time and people are likely going to continue to be willing to pay more and more for it.  But you also get value from having more options available to you that empower you in terms of being able to hold and transmit value and even potentially have a lot of privacy too, even if the BTC price might not go up in price.

You have to figure out your own reasons for investing into BTC and what kind of allocation to make into it, and if you ONLY think about price, you may well be missing some of the other ideas regarding how powerful Bitcoin is to be able to communicate value without having to go through a third party intermediary or having to risk having your funds frozen or debased - and surely there is some devils in the details regarding how some of the systems in bitcoin are going to continue to develop in which third-party intermediaries might lose a decent amount of power over your finances when you have abilities to transmit value apart from them (in whole or in part) - including considering that historically, we had been able to transact value with physical cash, and even physical cash is being attacked in terms of sometimes not being available or used.. and of course fiat (not just physical cash) is being debased on an ongoing basis too.

We are looking at this matter differently because I am not presuming that any bitcoin investment theory is merely going to put poor countries back to the position that they were previously.

I didn't focus that reply solely on you but rather on the 40 pages and nearly one thousand posts on the same topic about Salvador which claim Salvador will get rich because they are buying coins now and those will appreciate in value. But in order for them to profit from their investment, again, they will need someone to buy that stash from them at a higher price, right?

Nope.  They can still advantage in a lot of ways by investing into bitcoin and using bitcoin, and surely bitcoin is likely to continue to go up in value/price, but it is not an absolute condition precedent that bitcoin has to go up in price in order to profit from it... Furthermore, one of the great things about bitcoin is that you can develop all kinds of strategies to be empowered by bitcoin without necessarily having to have the BTC price go up, but an almost inevitable side benefit (kind of a perk in which you can both have your cake and eat it too) remains that bitcoin is likely to go up in price/value whether we need it to or not, and in that way HODLers of bitcoin end up profiting in those additional ways that come from that likely ongoing price appreciation.

Another way of framing it is that you can do the right thing and get rich at the same time, as long as you do not get too fucking greedy in the process, so in that regard, you really do not have to invest a lot, just invest reasonably and prudently, and surely there are advantages to being somewhat aggressive, but being aggressive is not necessary either if you are bearish about the asset, you will likely still advantage from investing into bitcoin and maybe those who do not gamble too much or become too obsessed about it will end up doing better because they will not end up overleveraging themselves in terms of their investment into bitcoin.

Back to the Sango coin,

this thing doesn't match anything in the whitepaper

Market Coins 20.00% 4,200,000,000
Land Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 10 years locking period
Citizenship Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 5 years locking period
E-Residence Offering 10.00% 2,100,000,000 3 years locking period

So god knows what's happening there.

Yep.. it seems that they are not getting too much investment into it so far, and surely people will be nervous about long locking periods, unless the issuer inspires them to have confidence that Sango coin will not end up playing out as a rug pull.

[Davian144]

Many people say that currently only small countries want to legalize bitcoin, but I'm sure 5 or 10 years from now more and more countries will legalize bitcoin, this of course is a start and makes us have to be optimistic about the future of bitcoin.

For now, not only small countries have legalized Bitcoin, but big countries like Qatar have not banned Bitcoin and even some investors from Qatar themselves really like cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin and are also trying to explore cryptocurrency by collaborating with certain parties. So I am more sure that in less than five years there will be several other countries that will legalize Bitcoin even though they do not immediately adopt it as a means of payment.

[stompix]

You are likely not technically incorrect to say that there is price appreciation when someone chooses to pay more for any item,

Of course I'm not, that's the basic definition you would find in every dictionary.

so if you are spinning a ponzi scheme angle, then it can sometimes end up coming off as not being a very genuine way of capturing ongoing value that is being built in bitcoin and not always reflected in the price.

I am not spinning any Ponzi scheme angle, you were the first to mention a Ponzi scheme and you were the only one to associate bitcoin with a Ponzi, so don't throw this at me.

Let me say this once more, there is no way for an asset to be profitable for you if you are not able to sell it for a higher price than you bought it!
END of it!

And the other value and what it represents is meaningless when we talk about wealth and profit and investment.
A pill can cost 2$ and save a life that can't be measured in money, but it's still a 2$ pill! And if the pharmaceutical company sees it as a profit source that is in demand it can rise the price to 100$  and that will be its value if it's still bought. If it's not being bought at that price not, then it's not worth 100$ anymore but 2$ or the next higher bidder!

I don't have any major disagreement with you on this point  

Seems like we're not sharing the same habit of going full Alexandre Dumas (the father) when it's not needed

Bitcoin remains a good hedge, and sure the basic premise is that it is likely to go up in value with the passage of time and people are likely going to continue to be willing to pay more and more for it.

Say what?  

Nope.  They can still advantage in a lot of ways by investing into bitcoin and using bitcoin, and surely bitcoin is likely to continue to go up in value/price, but it is not an absolute condition precedent that bitcoin has to go up in price in order to profit from it...

Please do share with me an example where you buy Bitcoins, you send them in a cold wallet for 10 years, you don't plan on selling any of them, the value drops in 50% and you still "profit" from them...

And I know it's hard for you and I'm most likely trying to compete with mythical heroes here by accomplishing the 13th task that even Hercules himself wasn't able to do, a thing that was never experienced in the history of this forum since it was founded and has seen many contributions bad or good, long or short, funny or sad on it, but still, pulling myself together and thinking that this is a good time to ask, that this is an opportunity that might not arise for days or even years to come, knowing that you have strike while the iron is hot, I humbly and sincerely, truly sincerely, you don't have to ponder even for one second that there is an ulterior motive to my request, could you for probably the first time, I know this is much, but please bare with me...

Can you make that example in one line of text without going back and forth from the genesis to the end of the universe?
Simple as this:

Betty has 10 BTC in her cold wallet she bought at 40k per coin and she doesn't plan on selling it for 10 years.
How is Betty benefiting from BTC?

[JayJuanGee]

Nope.  They can still advantage in a lot of ways by investing into bitcoin and using bitcoin, and surely bitcoin is likely to continue to go up in value/price, but it is not an absolute condition precedent that bitcoin has to go up in price in order to profit from it...

Please do share with me an example where you buy Bitcoins, you send them in a cold wallet for 10 years, you don't plan on selling any of them, the value drops in 50% and you still "profit" from them...

I think that I already sufficiently explained a variety of bitcoin's value propositions that are not necessarily tied to price, and surely there is the insurance element - which is also part of the idea of hedging.. Hedges do not always pay off monetarily if you just look at one of them, but the general idea is that if you have your feet and hands in a variety of places, you are better off than just putting everything in one place, even if some of them might not end up paying off.

Of course, you have every right to invest however the fuck you like, including being underinvested in bitcoin (at least you do not seem to be a nocoiner, even though sometimes through your seemingly highfalutin assessments of matters, you talk like one.. hahahahaha) because you look at it in narrow kinds of ways.. and that's your choice for sure.

And I know it's hard for you and I'm most likely trying to compete with mythical heroes here by accomplishing the 13th task that even Hercules himself wasn't able to do, a thing that was never experienced in the history of this forum since it was founded and has seen many contributions bad or good, long or short, funny or sad on it, but still, pulling myself together and thinking that this is a good time to ask, that this is an opportunity that might not arise for days or even years to come, knowing that you have strike while the iron is hot, I humbly and sincerely, truly sincerely, you don't have to ponder even for one second that there is an ulterior motive to my request, could you for probably the first time, I know this is much, but please bare with me...

Can you make that example in one line of text without going back and forth from the genesis to the end of the universe?
Simple as this:

Betty has 10 BTC in her cold wallet she bought at 40k per coin and she doesn't plan on selling it for 10 years.
How is Betty benefiting from BTC?

I already did it... above, and it does not necessarily add up to one line or even two.  Otherwise, you have to figure out the matter for yourself, since you seem to be so smartie panties.  Good luck, and hope you have enough BTC (or do I?)...   

[tadamichi]

Please do share with me an example where you buy Bitcoins, you send them in a cold wallet for 10 years, you don't plan on selling any of them, the value drops in 50% and you still "profit" from them...

And I know it's hard for you and I'm most likely trying to compete with mythical heroes here by accomplishing the 13th task that even Hercules himself wasn't able to do, a thing that was never experienced in the history of this forum since it was founded and has seen many contributions bad or good, long or short, funny or sad on it, but still, pulling myself together and thinking that this is a good time to ask, that this is an opportunity that might not arise for days or even years to come, knowing that you have strike while the iron is hot, I humbly and sincerely, truly sincerely, you don't have to ponder even for one second that there is an ulterior motive to my request, could you for probably the first time, I know this is much, but please bare with me...

Can you make that example in one line of text without going back and forth from the genesis to the end of the universe?
Simple as this:

Betty has 10 BTC in her cold wallet she bought at 40k per coin and she doesn't plan on selling it for 10 years.
How is Betty benefiting from BTC?

I wouldn’t overcomplicate it, not planning to sell doesn't mean not being able to. So having an asset that has the least likelihood of failure when other assets will, is like having an ace up one’s sleeve. Having an asset that’s least likely to be able to get confiscated, is also like having an ace up one’s sleeve. So it will be there exactly when betty needs it, kind of like an insurance.

And if we look at the current state of the world, where are the 400k best placed in? You have to put it somewhere to really preserve it, even when not planning to sell. And then again i don’t see a better option than Bitcoin for this purpose, for the simple fact that you can move and self custody it. Simply holding will benefit a whole lot of people trough many possible scenarios. Good luck crossing borders with 400k in gold, good luck spending 400k in fiat in other currencies or getting this trough the banking system easily. Simply holding Bitcoin can be the difference between a complete wipeout or having preserved even something for a lot of people, this is game changing.

In the scenario you mentioned where Bitcoin would hypothetically have dropped 50% over 10 years(which has never happened), she could have still profited by still having access to it. Something like gold can get confiscated in economic turmoil, currencies can undergo monetary reform where people get disadvantaged heavily. So it could be, that even in this hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin fell, that it preserved more value for the average person then they otherwise could preserve.

You never need an insurance, until you actually need it. And that’s where you benefit.

[stompix]

I think that I already sufficiently explained a variety of bitcoin's value propositions that are not necessarily tied to price, and surely there is the insurance element - which is also part of the idea of hedging.. Hedges do not always pay off monetarily if you just look at one of them, but the general idea is that if you have your feet and hands in a variety of places, you are better off than just putting everything in one place, even if some of them might not end up paying off.

And hedges are being used because it protects value, if people would believe Bitcoin would go to zero nobody would be buying it, so you're looking again from the other way around, it's not the hedging factor that is driving people to buy, is the trust that people have in the coin and desire to own bitcoin that makes it a hedge factor.

Otherwise, you have to figure out the matter for yourself, since you seem to be so smartie panties

Seems like my new investment of 50$ in nearly new panties bought online has paid off   Value is such an interesting thing, isn't it?
But it was worth seeing you write only one and a half line at least once!

I wouldn’t overcomplicate it, not planning to sell doesn't mean not being able to. So having an asset that has the least likelihood of failure when other assets will, is like having an ace up one’s sleeve. Having an asset that’s least likely to be able to get confiscated, is also like having an ace up one’s sleeve. So it will be there exactly when betty needs it, kind of like an insurance.

Just like JayJuanGee you're looking at what gives Bitcoin value in the first place, that kind of insurance, the ability to control your own finances without anyone interfering is what generates both value and attractivity for new users, it's not the other way around.
If just those would be defining the value we would have LTC or shitcoincash also worth 25k, which obviously and hopefully will never happen.

And if we look at the current state of the world, where are the 400k best placed in? You have to put it somewhere to really preserve it, even when not planning to sell.~Simply holding Bitcoin can be the difference between a complete wipeout or having preserved even something for a lot of people, this is game changing.

You're only focusing on the mid of the story, all these scenarios would end with you finally using those coins one way or the other, and if nobody is willing to buy you coins for more than 1$ then everything was....well, useless, right? In the end, at the point when you decide to use them, there must be somebody who is offering you something worth in exchange, euros, dollars, cheese, ammo, porn DVDs, or used panties otherwise the whole concept of a store of value is broken.

And that is exactly from where this debate has started, if CAR will be wanting to take the profits from BTC there must be somebody offering them something in exchange for those coins, so they need somebody else to be a believer and they need somebody else to pay a higher price to reach profit.

In the scenario you mentioned where Bitcoin would hypothetically have dropped 50% over 10 years(which has never happened), she could have still profited by still having access to it.
~
You never need an insurance, until you actually need it. And that’s where you benefit.

Again, how can you profit from something you're not using and how is Salvador profiting from the coins they hold in their stash?
Oh, of course, it's insurance, it's a deposit, but just like insurance, it's worth having only when you're able to cash in!
Please tell me you're not planning to be buried with your seed phrase and untouched coins!