I already predicted (in private circles and with friends) that the experiment in would go awry and end up being a net loss in PR for crypto in general.

This is my new prediction:

Before the end of this year, we will have evidence that at least one relevant person or organisation with an anti-bitcoin agenda in the short term (ill-)advised the Salvadorean government or their contractors, or actively worked on this new legislation or its technical implementation, with the goal of damaging the reputation of , causing a price drop, or delaying/preventing endorsement or adoption by other governments or by big companies.

This could be (eg): a financial regulator or watchdog in a developed country with an interest in preserving the status quo, an investment fund trying to groom the market before going all in, a “whale” who is short (even privately) on BTC, a large bank with an interest in boycotting, some resourceful think tank or non-profit with a strong conservative or progressive bent, etc.

@tripu wouldnt surprise me if this was the case, though im not sure it will necessarily surface with public evidence.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.