Which option will better to take?

[Crypto Library]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

[Despairo]

Accepting Bitcoin as legal tender wouldn't harm for the economy even it's on bear market, this because people are use it as a currency and not mainly for store a value. Actually countries that doesn't accept Bitcoin as legal tender would harm the economy since they're not use Bitcoin regularly due to it's not accepted on merchants. But we're talking if there's many people who hold Bitcoin, if it's only small group, then the effect is small.

The best option is don't force the countries to accept Bitcoin as legal tender, but governments shouldn't ban Bitcoin and allow any merchants if they want to accept Bitcoin payment.

[_act_]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Just two countries accepted bitcoin as a legal tender, El Salvador and CAR but including a tourist island in Honduras. There is no harm in my opinion because according to some research in El Salvador, most people (over 90% Salvadorans) that accept payment in bitcoin are converting it to fiat, but bitcoin absolutely help Salvadorans in remittance, cross border payment.

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

Not more than 14 countries that absolutely ban bitcoin, the rest either make it legal or partially make it legal in a way citizens can trade it using p2p. In my country, bitcoin is partially banned, but we people have the right to trade it using p2p.

[mk4]

Take note that accepting BTC as legal tender doesn't necessarily mean that a country would automatically need to dump a huge amount of their capital into bitcoin. Accepting BTC as legal tender is just that — the fact that people can legally accept BTC payments.

BTC being "harmful" or not would obviously just depend on the people if they buy(or receive) at higher prices and sell at low prices.

[348Judah]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

No country will prefer an appropriate time to adopt bitcoin as a legal tender than this present moment when there's dip in bitcoin price, which is a good timing to also buy as individuals, because onece the entry is set in now, the only anticipation is for a bullrun to occur and within 2023 to 2024 comes in a new ATH which is another added advantage

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

Nothing can be controlled in bitcoin, with or without adoption there will always be illegal activities in the society, while countries that thought it could be controlled eventually failed to adopt it, they rather introduced thier own CBDC, if you want a currency under control then remain centralized with fiat, bitcoin cannot comply to the dictate of centralization, it is decentralized already right from the start.

[passwordnow]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

No. Why it would be? It's like having another means of exchange in that country. It's no different from paying with fiat to the businessmen and as well as paying them bitcoin with anything you purchase from them. And when there's a new means of exchange and legal tender, since it's bitcoin, there's a lot of use of it and it's even creating more sources for a country.

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

You use it or not, you'll just going to contribute to the growth of the economy. Because if you hold it, in the future, you'll be able to make profit from it so you still add to the growth.

[salad daging]

I think it will not be harmful to the country's economy as long as the state treasury is not included in bitcoin but for legal payments it will not harm it, it's just that the government has no control over it so many still prohibit bitcoin payments.

This adoption sooner or later there will definitely be some countries that follow like El Salvador but the government will still make fiat as the main currency and bitcoin only as a payment, that's still a lot of things we need to know the government will certainly have a more mature plan about this.

[yazher]

You see that's why other countries remain neutral about their judgment about bitcoin because they cannot risk their economy and the first country that implements it as legal tender is not yet showing some good results of what they have done. For me, those countries that are not making it hard for the traders are the real heroes because they are not only giving a chance for their people to earn they also making it easy for the local exchanges to operate by taking some small taxes from both of them.

[The Cryptovator]

I am not getting actually how this would be harmful. Imagine my country doesn't accept Bitcoin but still a lot of people use that. Is it harmful to the country's economy? If it's not now then why should harmful when it's legal tender unless government accumulates a big amount of Bitcoin? Bitcoin legal tender means it's open to use or store, you can exchange it easily to cash anytime. So I don't think it's harmful anyway.

[hd49728]

Legal tender or not, there will be guys who do legal things and there will be others who do illegal things.

Bitcoin can not be stopped by legal tender, governmemts, regulations but we can not stop bad people use Bitcoin for illegal things. But it is not because Bitcoin is bad. Bad people use Bitcoin for their bad things. Kind people use Bitcoin for useful things.

Bitcoin was not created intentionally for bad, illegal things.

[Xxmodded]

Just two countries accepted bitcoin as a legal tender, El Salvador and CAR but including a tourist island in Honduras. There is no harm in my opinion because according to some research in El Salvador, most people (over 90% Salvadorans) that accept payment in bitcoin are converting it to fiat, but bitcoin absolutely help Salvadorans in remittance, cross border payment.

El Savador most popular country right now know after accepting bitcoin as legal currency transaction payment, I think around 90% of Salvadorans accepted bitcoin as legal currency transaction give positive impact exactly with tourism. I think not matter about Salvadorans directly converting payment using bitcoin to fiat but they helped many tourism easy when make travelling or vacation to El Savador. How ever tourism when using bitcoin as legal currency transaction not busy for converting to be local cash money and they can use directly bitcoin as transaction payment.

[avikz]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Accepting bitcoin as a legal tender will not have a huge adverse effect on a country's economy. Having it as a reserve currency, will surely have an adverse effect. Or else if the government makes a large investment into bitcoin, that will bring in adverse effect. Simply making it a legal tender is just fine.

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

El-Salvador is trying to do it through the government sponsored Chivo wallet but I am sure they haven't yet fully succeeded. It's extremely difficult to just filter out illegal transactions. So that has become a major pain point for many couturiers where it is not yet accepted as a legal tender. But the concerns are real indeed.

[isaac_clarke22]

~

BTC as a legal tender or not is not going to change a shitty economy of a country. I can recall back in 2017 when people were having that thoughts that Bitcoin would even solve unemployment and poverty as that is one notable economic problem that countries encounter.
Illegal stuff like money laundering are even happening outside crypto so we cannot just assume that just crypto would be able to resolve it just that easily and heck to those people that even think that Bitcoin should be banned because it is used for all those illegal activities that you could think of.
I cannot recall who was that user but this thread made me recall of that one user that mentioned that making Bitcoin as a legal tender is a no-no since regulations would happen which is somehow against to the nature of Bitcoin itself and...... he has a good point.

[Jody.Drummer]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

It hurts when the government doesn't really have the same goals as Bitcoin. Therefore, there are not a few countries that still refuse because of the uncontrollability of incoming and outgoing finances. As for talking about the economic growth that a country has achieved due to adopting Bitcoin, it is not a specific benchmark. But specifically, if a country wants to adopt Bitcoin, it means that the parties managing finances in that country have a goal of building public trust. For example, in El Salvador, initially many countries doubted the decision to adopt Bitcoin.

Especially when a bear market you may see bait against the government of El Salvador considered a failure. But all of them went through with confidence and as a result, they experienced a change of condition that improved when other countries were just starting their economic recovery after the epidemic.

[goldkingcoiner]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

That last sentence that you wrote really puts what i wanted to reply in a nutshell.

Many countries have outlawed it because they are not able to control it. And honestly, by now they have proven that they simply cannot do anything except scare people into believing that they somehow can.

The economy won't be harmed. In fact, a transparent, fair and verifiable market which cannot be corrupted will only benefit the economy.

The only ones it hurts are the people who profit from financial corruption. That's why corrupt countries like china try to desperately ban it.

[coinerer]

Legal tender means legally valid. That means anyone will be able to transact Bitcoin within that country. If a person is using Bitcoin with  honest motive then I think there will be no problem in using it. On the other side , Bitcoin is the most volatile currency, there will be risk in investing. If the market is bearish, the price will decrease and if it is bullish, opposite will be happen. After knowing all the thing no one wants to lose. I basically don't find anything negativity in the OP's two questions.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Accepting bitcoin as a legal tender means the country is progressive/liberal-minded. For the short term, it might cause some downtrend to the economy (as people don't tend to use currencies that fluctuate more than the foreign ones), but in the long term it can take another dimension. Deflation benefits those who save up money. Therefore, a country consisted of Bitcoiners is a country consisted of individuals whose savings can't be devalued by authorities.

Bitcoin as a legal tender isn't "good" neither "bad". It depends on the how, and according to what.

[goinmerry]

But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Regardless of the Bitcoin's trend, either bullish or bearish, still, if its use as a legal tender, it will be used as how usual fiat currency was being used. I don't see how it will harm the economy where in return, it's still a currency. No changes at all. In the first place, bitcoin was meant to served as a currency.

Although expect some more regulations, maybe more strict ones once it becomes a legal tender in a certain country.

Like to see someone here from El Salvador and share experience on how's the feeling that bitcoin is being used everywhere on that country like fiat.

[Hamphser]

Recently it has been seen that some countries have accepted Bitcoin as legal tender. But my question is more adoption of btc and taking it as legal tender aren't going to harmful for the economy of a country, specially when btc is in bearish ?

Or is it better to use it through control to avoid illegal or the bad side effect on economy?
Many countries have still outlawed it for not being able to control it.

Try to look and observed on whats happening on El Salvador you could really see that they do able to handle it well even though bearish times do come and able to sustain out and even instead buying coins

when it cheap.You could really be able to determine on whats their intent and future goals towards accepting or making bitcoin as a legal tender.Lots had been criticizing on what actions that they had made out

but it turns out that they arent  really that affected with those but instead they are really accumulating even more whenever the market do give out cheap prices.

[BIT-BENDER]

Many countries has frowned on Bitcoin and crypto-currency in general, I am from such countries and if I am to tell you from my experience I think the ban is just formalities, really I don't think crypto-currency can be ban, the usage of Bitcoin and other cryptos in still going on especially this time the currency of my country is devaluing Crypto has really saved many.

My own stand on your question is this, every individual should be giving the freedom to express them self, told about the dangers and benefits. I think Crypto-currency should be a legal tend by choice, that is who individuals should chose the medium they want to use to carry out their transactions. I personally I have found saving in crypto fat more beneficial than saving in Fiat, so do many now taking away this option is an infringement on Human rights.