Is El Salvador's Embrace of Bitcoin Good, Bad, or Both?

Officially adopting the currency is great news, but mandating acceptance is a problem.


Have you heard the good news? The fiduciary light of Satoshi is coming to the nation of El Salvador in a big way.

Our Constantine in this case is the young and social media-savvy (and member of the bitcoin class of 2017) President Nayib Bukele, who recently signed into law a proposal that would make bitcoin a currency of the realm. And like that other historical reformer, this turn to embrace a burgeoning (monetary) morality may introduce some pain on those who might not right now be on board. No wonder bitcoin evangelists have opposing opinions on what should be a great institutional turn. What role should the state play in encouraging bitcoin adoption?

First, the facts. El Salvador—"the Savior"—may not have been the first place most would have suspected to be on the vanguard of monetary innovation, but the conditions were good. Many Latin American countries receive a good number of overseas remittances, and El Salvador is no different. It has a considerable population with no access to financial services at all, which makes the process of receiving remittances expensive and difficult. El Salvador is distinct in that it had no state-issued currency, but rather just used the good old U.S. dollar.

And El Salvador had already been attracting crypto-utopians (and anonymous investment) in the "Bitcoin Beach" surfer community in El Zonte that uses the cryptocurrency for daily transactions. One of these eventual bitcoin beachbums was none other than the young Lightning network entrepreneur Jack Mallers, who worked closely with Bukele in drafting the law and announced the initiative to the receptive acolytes at this year's Bitcoin Conference in Miami.

Here's what it does: Citing the need to generate "the necessary conditions to increase national wealth for the benefit of the greatest number of inhabitants" and noting that "approximately 70 percent of the population does not have access to traditional financial services," the law establishes that bitcoin will be "unrestricted legal tender with liberating power, unlimited in any transaction, and to any title that public or private natural or legal persons require carrying out." Prices may be expressed in BTC, taxes collected in BTC, and exchange rates set by the market. So far, so good.

It's really good, actually. To date, most countries have been lukewarm at best when it comes to bitcoin. To see a state not only not immediately try to crack down on bitcoin but instead give it a big old bearhug is remarkable. That the state that is doing this happens to rule over people that could enjoy some of the greatest benefits from sovereign finance and censorship-resistant payments makes it that much more exciting. At a time when powerful central banks seem to be readying their arrows, who could blame the faithful for their joy?

Then comes Article 7: "Every economic agent must accept bitcoin as payment when offered to him by whoever acquires a good or service." This is where some bitcoiners get off the bandwagon. It's one thing to allow people to pay taxes in bitcoin or make clear that bitcoin transactions are legal and encouraged, they say. It's another to mandate that everyone must accept bitcoin any time it is offered.

There is an ideological argument. Bitcoiners are often libertarians with the usual spectrum of attending procedural and deontological values. In one school of thought, individual actions and preferences are not only usually more efficient, they are also always more morally correct than government fiat. Even if bitcoin is a good in itself, if it is imposed by immoral means, it becomes a moral bad. Bitcoin critics, who are decidedly not libertarian, have homed in on this seeming hypocrisy as well.

This is where logistical concerns arise. Let's assume that every single El Salvadoran is happy with the new law. Requiring all merchants to have working bitcoin processes by September 7, the date by which the law takes effect, could create headaches.

Maybe merchants will scramble to comply by the date and their systems won't be as good as they should be. Maybe a wave of social engineering attacks opens El Salvador up to major theft and scams. Maybe the price of bitcoin takes a sudden dive and turns people off from the currency unnecessarily. It's easy to imagine how things could turn south, and of course bitcoin's critics would have a happy field day. Worse, it could make other countries that desperately need monetary sovereignty to turn away.

Or maybe, possibly, things will turn out all right after all. Bitcoiners are bitcoiners because they believe that this technology can financially free people from monetary mismanagement and third-party control. If we believe bitcoin is such a good thing in itself, is it so terrible that a government is putting it on legal footing with the U.S. dollar?

And maybe, possibly, the law is not even as forceful as it appears. Supporters point out that Article 12 of the law has something of an escape clause. It holds that "those who, by evident and notorious fact, do not have access to the technologies that allow them to carry out transactions in bitcoin are excluded from the obligation expressed in Art. 7." Nor does the law require that Salvadorans hold bitcoin. They may exchange it immediately for another currency like U.S. dollars. The goal is to use merchant adoption as a way to build up the technological infrastructure needed to make bitcoinization meaningful.

Great! Or, not? Critics counter that the next line effectively cancels that out since it directs the state to "promote the necessary training and mechanisms so that the population can access bitcoin transactions." Article 8 also holds that the State will "promote the necessary training and mechanisms so that the population can access bitcoin transactions."

It's already doing it: The government is releasing a "public option" wallet, called Chivo ("cool" in Salvadoran slang), and will gift $30 of bitcoin to every adult citizen. Salvadorans won't be forced to use that wallet, as per Article 8 the state cannot "prejudice [the] actions of the private sector." It's intended to be an accessible option that is custom-built for the Salvadoran people—it can immediately exchange BTC for USD, as the law provides. If Salvadorans would rather use a different wallet, they can.

The international bitcoin community, mostly in developed countries like the United States, is—in true bitcoin fashion—still engaged in this heated back and forth over whether or not "we" should support this law. It's probably baffling to outsiders. Here is a country that is adopting bitcoin as legal tender (and then some), yet many bitcoiners have been just as much, if not more, opposed to the law than bitcoin's critics. Do we really think Salvadoran troops will knock down the front door of every pupuseria to make sure they are accepting bitcoin?

It seems unlikely, and for his part President Bukele is doing the rounds in the bitcoin influencer sphere to defend the bill. He says you can't just take Article 7 out, as it will help kickstart the financial infrastructure needed to make a bitcoin standard that is more than legally theoretical. He says each element of the bill is necessary to bring bitcoin to his country where 70 percent of the people are totally unbanked—a way to "awaken dead capital." He says he believes in bitcoin and that it will help his countrymen build and save wealth. Besides, the bill was drafted and voted on by a supermajority in the democratically elected (at least in Latin terms) legislature. Has anyone checked to see what the Salvadorans think?

There is no way around the procedural dilemma in Salvadoran bitcoinization for rights-based libertarians. The promise of a politician will hardly make that better. And bitcoiners have been burned by false prophets before. But for those of a more consequentialist bent, such ritual impurity poses no problem on its own. Anyway, if bitcoin truly frees people from government repression, wouldn't bitcoinization, even if forced, hoist any possible Salvadoran tyranny by its own petard?

It's a metamethodical conversation that touches on tender fault lines that have always existed within libertarian, and now bitcoin, circles. While we chatter online, the Salvadoran experiment continues apace. Let's hope it goes well. Concerned catechumens could have turned to prayer in response to any Constantinian excesses. Unless they feel so strongly that they want to engage in some external subversion, bitcoiners and critics outside of El Salvador will mostly just have to keep arguing on the internet.

NEXT: Want to Reduce the Danger of Illegal Fireworks? Legalize Them.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Article 12 makes 7 mute. So there is no story, but leave it to Reason to make a story about it. The real story is Article 11:
    Art. 11. The Central Reserve Bank and the Superintendency of the Financial System shall issue the corresponding regulations within the period mentioned in Article 16 of this law.

    1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy SD and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..FAST CASH1 COM

  2. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
    on this page….. JOBS APP

  3. The Central Reserve Bank

  4. The story of how they chose bitcoin as the means of de-dollarizing – where the source of dollars is almost entirely remittances by poor people – is interesting. But I suspect this has more to do with El Salvadors role in the three narco-states there. Where El Salvador is currently the money launderer. In all three, the extremely high homicide rates are because they are narco-states.

    I know bitcoin enthusiasts don’t give a shit about any of this. But I also don’t see how El Salvador actually deals with a serious problem by dedollarizing via bitcoin.

    1. I know bitcoin enthusiasts don’t give a shit about any of this. But I also don’t see how El Salvador actually deals with a serious problem by dedollarizing via bitcoin.

      The other direction as well. If Bitcoin, or a government-backed Bitcoin, can’t keep armed drug cartels off the books, then it can’t keep armed state cartels off the books either. And if a government-backed bitcoin has armed state cartels on it’s books well then… buy Bitcoin!(?)

  5. I’m not sure why the requirement that everybody accept bitcoin as valid currency is such a big problem – the US Dollar has a statement printed right on it that you have to accept it as payment for all debts, why should bitcoin be treated differently?

    1. US Dollar has a statement printed right on it that you have to accept it as payment for all debts,

      It just says it’s legal tender, it doesn’t say you have to accept it and, even then, there are private (and public) debts for which it is not allowed. Your use of “Your money’s no good here.” may vary but it has nothing to do with fiscal policy.

      1. “It just says it’s legal tender,..”

        No, it doesn’t “just ” say that. It reads:
        “this note is legal tender for all debts public and private”
        Looks to me that if anyone refuses it, they are refusing legal payment.

        1. Right. It just says it’s legal tender. Nowhere does it say what you have to do because of it.

          JFC when did you idiots fail to understand the difference between active and passive rights and succumb to the “that which isn’t illegal is mandatory” idiocy? Do you really think that if you throw $20 at a woman and tell her to take her clothes off she’s legally bound to accept your currency in exchange for legal services? That you can walk into McDs, order $5 worth of food, produce a $1 bill and they just have to accept it? WTF?

          Moreover, this gets into the issue with requiring BTC acceptance, the distinction between BTC and cash with regard to privacy and secrecy. Whether the woman performs services for you or not, if she accepts your cash there is no record of the transaction. Whereas, with BTC, there’s a public record of the exchange between your, uh, wallet and, ahem, hers. Damned if you don’t all deserve Salvadoran Bitcoin good and hard.

          1. Wow you sound like you have no idea of what legal tender means. It just means that if you owe me $20 I am not legally allowed to insist you pay me in Bitcoin or gold instead.

  6. Great article, thanks! I think that bitcoin has a right to exist like any other currency. And it’s good that it is an independent and free currency. I wonder where El Salvador will come. It’s great that now there are more and more options for earning and paying for goods.

Please to post comments