you're probably right about Bhutan's approach. I doubt there is a country that will hold BTC forever but reasonable sales will help solve local problems without significantly impacting the market.
I prefer a usage of Bitcoin that solves actual problems.
In El Salvador people didn’t use Bitcoin. That was a top-down project with no impact in the lives of the citizens.
In Buthan at least there is the wishful thinking (being that a government project) of a positive impact in the people lives. And I bet the amount of Bitcoin the State is holding will make Buthan one of the few nation able to steer their path thanks to Bitcoin.
El Salvador seemed to have had an agenda to publicly promote bitcoin, and I had thought thought that Bhutan was being more covert about their bitcoin activities - including that they were only discovered after their name showed up within the Celsius bancrupcy filings.
I kind of like the idea of governments being somewhat transparent with its activities, even though surely in some respects (such as their entering into contractual agreements with the IMF) we likely could accuse El Salvador of having some lack of transparency also... .. yet I think that with El Salvador they were trying to suggest that citizens would be able to freely use bitcoin like money in their country and also promoting various educational programs with young people.. and so even if some of their programs were not successful, there had been some degree of non-hostility to the population to be able to use bitcoin without having to worry about tax (accounting) restrictions, and it is a bit unclear from what I have heard the extent to which Bhutan's mining (and profiting from bitcoin) had trickled down to permitting (or lack of hostility) in regards to peer to peer bitcoin transactions within the country.
from the perspective of a true Bitcoin holder, El Salvador's approach appears more attractive while Bhutan's sales weaken BTC itself.
What would they gain from holding Bitcoin indefinitely
At least they are realistic and don't paint themselves as a collector
They see Bitcoin benefit and plan to enjoy from it.
Selling Bitcoin doesn't make Bitcoin less valuable. A BTC is still one BTC
even if they don't sell others would whether real or paper manipulation.
We can say Bhutan cares about the now Benefit while Salvador is more about the future benefit.
If the sales is geared towards a necessity for the people then a little sacrifice for the future could be justified
If there's no now then won't be any future.
That is another thing. El Salvador talks about and promotes the self-sovereignty angle of bitcoin, to proclaim that their country is attempting to use bitcoin to get out of debt and to reclaim their own counrty sovereignty that is free from debt.. and perhaps with trickle down to the citizenry. It is unclear how Bhutan interacts with IMF or world financial institutions in regards to bitcoin, including that perhaps Bhutan did not have the same magnitude of debt problems (and historical governmental corruption) like El Salvador said that they were attempting to use bitcoin to overcome.. which surely Bukele's messages have been in line with self-sovereignty ideas.. which seems to include ideas of both governmental and individual (perhaps institutional too) sovereignty through bitcoin as a form of sound money. I surely appreciate the sound money attributes of bitcoin, whether spending (using) it or not.
