[dexter0]

Key points:

> Despite these profits, crypto has brought El Salvador more costs than benefits. The free publicity has been welcome, yet crypto-investment and crypto-tourism have been small beer. Gains in financial inclusion and from more efficient payments are meagre at best: the currency never really caught on. In 2022, when the hype was at its peak, a survey by CID-Gallup found that only a fifth of firms accepted bitcoin and just 5% of tax payments were in crypto.

> Moreover, the policy cost $375m in all—from the Chivo rollout, subsidised transaction fees, bitcoin ATMs and more—according to Moody’s, a rating agency. That far exceeds the profits on bitcoin holdings, which could still evaporate. By delaying an IMF deal, the crypto experiment kept El Salvador’s risk premium high.

[Loughla]

So this was just a way to shift more public dollars into private hands?

[dgfitz]

The bulk of BTC is owned by like 50 people. It’s such a fucking joke.

[blitzar]

and 20 of them lost the keys to those BTC 10 years ago

[horrible-hilde]

yes

[ty6853]

375 minus like 287 in unrealized gains. My next question is are they still behind once you consider the market value of the ATM and other investments. I doubt it's a total write off.

[rafram]

Who’s realistically going to buy 400 or so bitcoin ATMs (must pick up in El Salvador)? ATMs aren’t a high-margin business.

[ty6853]

I don't trust El Salvador. I also don't trust the people indicting their policy. I hope to God they have more than 400 ATM to show for 375M. Surely there is more to it.

[rafram]

I was wrong - they actually only have 215 of them: https://cointelegraph.com/news/poland-overtakes-el-salvador-...

It was just bad, showboaty policy from a showboaty strongman leader. Why would you give him the benefit of the doubt even now?

[ty6853]

I don't want to give him the benefit but I also question how even a strongman can justify over $1M per ATM. My alarm bells are ringing that I'm missing something.