Bitcoin's impact on which country in the next four years

[Bluebird1357]

Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and a half, serving as a digital currency and network around the world. Not only that, it is now maintaining the world's economic leadership and maintaining its influence on the global financial system. Many countries in the world are pushing this technological innovation forward to keep the economy in a strong position in the future.

For many years we have seen Bitcoin mainly as an investment, a means of storing value or a hedge against inflation. But recently, it seems that the focus of the discussion is gradually changing. Bitcoin supporters believe that the country that collects more Bitcoins first will have a strategic advantage in the future. Because someone says "America Has One Move Left To Win The Next 250 Years – And It's Bitcoin | Matt McDonagh" Although I do not see such statements as predictions but as a strategic opinion.

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

[Dunamisx]

As long as nothing changes about bitcoin network protocols, bitcoin will remain ever relevant. All we need is to understand how it could apply to our various demands and sectors it's been needed in; decentralization is one of the opportunities we have in it and this asset will always remain a valuable and profitable one, while we can still engage using the coin for exchange in buying and selling, as it is known to hedge against inflation.

[Jegileman]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

People have come to embrace bitcoin more because of its potential as an investable asset that has a very good return on investment. Even by this, it doesn’t dispute that fact that in the future, bitcoin will be seen more beyond this and would be used for other purposes as in what it was originally invented for, to be used as an alternative to the fiat currency we’re using.

This is not about Bitcoin being used as a digital currency in a particular country, but should be more about Bitcoin going to expanding its course globally beyond just one country. It may take a while, but if Bitcoin becomes a more legally accepted currency, we won’t bother much about what it’ll be used for mostly, as it’ll go beyond just use for transaction as a digital currency.

[rat03gopoh]

Not only that, it is now maintaining the world's economic leadership and maintaining its influence on the global financial system.

This is quite an exaggeration; I don't feel like I've reached this point yet.
Furthermore, I haven't seen any significant regulatory changes that would significantly impact the financial well-being of the population. What determines Bitcoin's impact isn't Bitcoin, but its regulations. And most governments remain protective. Bitcoin is simply the standard object of a new regulatory framework in the digital financial sector.

[Questat]

As long as nothing changes about bitcoin network protocols, bitcoin will remain ever relevant. All we need is to understand how it could apply to our various demands and sectors it's been needed in; decentralization is one of the opportunities we have in it and this asset will always remain a valuable and profitable one, while we can still engage using the coin for exchange in buying and selling, as it is known to hedge against inflation.

True. Bitcoin will always make a significant impact as long as people will continue to patronize bitcoin, not just as an asset, but a hedge against inflation too. Bitcoin is originally created as a decentralized currency, so we'll make it happen as long as the demand for bitcoin continues, and as long as there will be larger scope of countries who will continue to embrace bitcoin and its technology.

It takes time, maybe 5-10 years. And we'll cross the bridge once its getting there. Bitcoin is made for one, that's how Satoshi wanted it to be.

[JiiBs]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

While I might buy into the sentiment of the national having the most would in some way influence the market, I suppose that would mean having to liquidate from time to time and that would mean, a loss of that influence or control.

About the possibility of Bitcoin maintaining the economic leadership, well the economy isn’t dependent on Bitcoin and as such, other sectors would be sure to help with Bitcoin not forming a significant part of that. The world would still go on smoothly.

[As-Soon-As]

The Bitcoin network is quite strong, it will definitely survive in the future, you see, the developers are constantly working on it. But we can assume that it is able to work the most against inflation. The more Bitcoin moves forward into the future, the more it will be updated, because now Bitcoin is used in institutions and for daily transactions, among which you can see the country of El Salvador.
Bitcoin is not only for investment, you can use it in many other ways, but for now I am using it more for Bitcoin holding.

[GreatArkansas]

(....)
Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

For me, the technology behind Bitcoin is incredible and evolving, especially as technology now evolves fast, especially with AI Right now. For me, if you are a country and into Bitcoin, let's say even if you don't yet invest, it's already huge!
But if a country will use Bitcoin as their investment asset or a reserve is another level which for me is effect. Just think how some countrie has gold reserves.

[BlackBoss_]

For me, the technology behind Bitcoin is incredible and evolving, especially as technology now evolves fast, especially with AI Right now. For me, if you are a country and into Bitcoin, let's say even if you don't yet invest, it's already huge!
But if a country will use Bitcoin as their investment asset or a reserve is another level which for me is effect. Just think how some countrie has gold reserves.

Bitcoin history has changed significantly over years, from miner competition, investor competition, institutional investor competition, the national reserve competition. Since 2009, there are about 20 years already and Bitcoin has gone a very long and amazing adventure till its massive adoption and success today. Governments have changed their legal regulations on Bitcoin, and even Bitcoin legal tender is a challenging thing to achieve as same as Bitcoin national reserves, I feel the Bitcoin snowball started a long time and it's enough to make snowball effects.

Bitcoin national reserves will soon become very popular globally and nations take action earlier than the others will have a lot of advantages.

[m2017]

Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and a half, serving as a digital currency and network around the world.

Bitcoin has existed as a digital currency for less than the period you indicated. Most of its time (recently), bitcoin has existed as a digital investment vehicle (mostly).

Not only that, it is now maintaining the world's economic leadership and maintaining its influence on the global financial system.

I would say that it is the global financial system that influences bitcoin, because any event “there” is immediately reflected “here”.

Many countries in the world are pushing this technological innovation forward to keep the economy in a strong position in the future.

Not many countries. Not all countries have understood this yet, and therefore they're lagging behind in adopting this innovation.

For many years we have seen Bitcoin mainly as an investment, a means of storing value or a hedge against inflation. But recently, it seems that the focus of the discussion is gradually changing. Bitcoin supporters believe that the country that collects more Bitcoins first will have a strategic advantage in the future. Because someone says "America Has One Move Left To Win The Next 250 Years – And It's Bitcoin | Matt McDonagh" Although I do not see such statements as predictions but as a strategic opinion.

I don't see the focus of the discussion shifting from "as an investment, a means of preserving value or a hedge against inflation" to "a strategic advantage in the future", because it essentially the same thing. That is, the former merely reveals the essence (meaning) of the latter.

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

Why exactly 4 years? Not 3, 5, or 10?

El Salvador (a country, let's say, far from having the strongest economy) has been actively investing in bitcoin for quite some time now (it was one of the first). We'll see how ownership of this country affects El Salvador's position on the global economic stage. So far, no noticeable changes have been observed.

To be honest, I doubt that a single factor, such as ownership of bitcoin, can influence the "global influence and power of any country". After all, it's a combination of factors that shape a country's position.

Bitcoin is like a booster; yes, it will allow countries to become "stronger", but it won't significantly change the situation for the weak, as it won't allow them to reach the level of the truly strong.

[TedMosby]

17 years is still a relatively short period of time to prove a thing can provide a strategic advantage in the future, especially for something bigger, like a country. For now, I think the narrative saying holding Bitcoin can be an advantage for a country is premature. I personally think the opposite. Countries will make Bitcoin bigger. Apart from the technology, the benefits, and the popularity, I think scarcity plays a significant role in why countries try to have more and more. In the end, the price will be driven by 2 things, the countries that own the most and how powerful the countries that own the most are.

Right now, it seems more likely that powerful countries can strengthen Bitcoin's narrative and influence, rather than Bitcoin alone strengthening a country's global position.

Imagine the country that owns the most is a third-world country, the market wouldn't react significantly. Bitcoin needs powerful countries to make it move significantly. They will build the narrative to show how valuable their holdings are and why other countries should see them as valuable too.

CMIIW.

[X-ray]

Bitcoin is still considered as just commodity in most part of the world. There are still room to grow and the impact slowly growing.

Bitcoin's technology is strong and decentralized, I'm sure in the future Bitcoin still remains relevant, however if government across the world allow bitcoin to be alternative legal tender, that's where the real impact will come.

Everybody will have access to decentralized currency and able to own Bitcoin just like they owned money and able to spend it everywhere. When that time comes, the country that have Bitcoin as one of their strategic reserve will be far ahead.

[fuguebtc]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

I do not know what basis  you have for claiming that Bitcoin has taken a leading position in the global economy or holds real influence over the global financial system . But based on what I have observed, I do not think Bitcoin has achieved that. I also do not believe it has the potential to shape, change or become the foundation of the future global economy.

Regardless of how great the potential of bitcoin is.  I think that ultimately it will still primarily be an investment asset and a store of value , rather than becoming the foundation of the global economy.

[Hewlet]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

putting the timeframe of four years to your question already spoils things because the rate of adoption has not gotten to that level where we can say that in the next four years that the majority of the nations that are seen as world powers would have gone fully into investing in bitcoin or holding it as a strong means of her reserve. as much as the discussion on the mass adoption of bitcoin is on the rise, that is not there is to the world's biggest asset. adoption will increase certainly before the next four years but there is no need to be over expectant of what will become of bitcoin or how it alone will change the world financial landscape.

[CryptoYar]

Change from seeing Bitcoin only as investment to seeing it as planned asset for country is not in theory but fact that is speeding up. What goes on in United States with regards to Bitcoin reserves, El Salvador adoption, and different government wealth reserves looking into buying some all go in a similar way.
The 4 year question is more realistic to address. Over that period of time Bitcoin will not be the primary reserve asset, but it will be well known part of government wealth plan by more countries. Buying up race is already in progress and is not noticed by the public. It is still largely an investment asset, and how big economies will use it in the next few years will be key to its becoming true money system. That decision making process is already in process.

[Livingleged]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

Well, I think  bitcoin  is actually considered as a store of value and investment asset rather  than a technology  advancements  that is capable  of granting any country a sustained economic leadership, global  influence, or power  in the next four years. Bitcoin  will still just act as a global  asset that is decentralized which  will always have an edge  against  inflation.

However  bitcoin  will always  be relevant  so long  as it's decentralized and even more  relevant  as it gain more adoption. But I don't think  it will be able to act as a dominant  currency  that will determine nations power or any of such influences.

[Die_empty]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

Global financial influence cannot be determined by massive acquisition or holding of Bitcoin. The total worth of Bitcoin in circulation is approximately $1.21 trillion. Meanwhile, the global economy is worth about $118.18 trillion. The combination of other assets or industries will determine global economic influence. The technology, AI, oil and gas, military, financial services & banking industry will determine the economic power of a country. Bitcoin will be a major financial asset if its price continues to rise, potentially reaching half a million dollars. But I don't see that happening in the next four years.

The US president introduced a new drive in the crypto space by proposing a Bitcoin reserve. The hype about increasing the US Bitcoin reserve has died down since the goverment has not purchased any since then. For now, Bitcoin is a currency and an asset for retailers and institutions and not a goverment tool for economic influence.

[OcTradism]

Why exactly 4 years? Not 3, 5, or 10?

Likely because of the Bitcoin market cycle is four-year, so the figure of four year is used here.

Surely it is different like four years since when?
Like since a first year of last market cycle
Since a first year of a bear market
Since a second year of a bear market when bear market is almost over and the market is warmed up for a next market cycle and bull run.

Though generally people tend to use a four year like a "standard" in their sayings, I agree with you that it does not always give accurate information.

[Lucius]

~snip~
El Salvador (a country, let's say, far from having the strongest economy) has been actively investing in bitcoin for quite some time now (it was one of the first). We'll see how ownership of this country affects El Salvador's position on the global economic stage. So far, no noticeable changes have been observed.

To be honest, I doubt that a single factor, such as ownership of bitcoin, can influence the "global influence and power of any country". After all, it's a combination of factors that shape a country's position.

Bitcoin is like a booster; yes, it will allow countries to become "stronger", but it won't significantly change the situation for the weak, as it won't allow them to reach the level of the truly strong.

That country has been investing in BTC for about 6 years, and in that period the public debt increased by some $5 billion, and the poverty rate by about 10% (over 30% in total). At the same time, the country depends on IMF money, which in turn is blackmailing the president into not investing anymore in BTC, and they managed to make it cease to be legal tender.

Global financial influence cannot be determined by massive acquisition or holding of Bitcoin. The total worth of Bitcoin in circulation is approximately $1.21 trillion. Meanwhile, the global economy is worth about $118.18 trillion.
~snip~

Over the years, I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum have problems even understanding the difference between a billion and a trillion and live in some illusion that a country can significantly influence its economy if it buys 10 000 BTC or maybe x10 as much.

I wonder where all those who wrote nonsense about how China will lose a lot of money because they banned Bitcoin trading and mining are now, while at the same time that country has a GDP of around $20 trillion. Or how Germany is a stupid country for selling 50k BTC, even though seized funds must be sold by law.

[YOSHIE]

Bitcoin's impact on which country in the next four years

Talking about the impact of Bitcoin, basically this factor cannot be separated from certain factors such as institutional adoption, macroeconomics and also including the government itself, meaning that country, if these factors already exist in that country it is likely that Bitcoin's impact will be felt significantly.

For this reason, my understanding and assessment is that there are countries that will have a significant impact in the next four years, such as:
• El Salvador & Bhutan, we know that these countries are countries where they use Bitcoin as legal tender, maybe you also know that, these countries have the impact of Bitcoin, especially the mining sector, economic transformation, independence from inflation and the current bad value of global fiat.
• Furthermore, Argentina, Turkey and Nigeria have almost the same points of impact of Bitcoin as above, facing high inflation.
• There is no need to discuss the United States anymore, globally people know the US's treatment of Bitcoin, of course the positive impact is quite large for that country, such as market liquidity and so on.