I can't help but feel the article is biased. The first line is "The launch of ... Chivo, has been a flop ...". Has it? It seems like there's more nuance than th

I can't help but feel the article is biased. The first line is "The launch of ... Chivo, has been a flop ...". Has it? It seems like there's more nuance than this broad stroke. Here's a snippet from section 4, "Concluding Remarks" of the original paper [0]: """ Despite these efforts and the incentive to use contactless payments caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, bitcoin is not widely used as a medium of exchange. While most citizens in El Salvador have a cell phone with internet, less than 60% of them downloaded Chivo Wallet, and 20% continued to use the app after spending their $30 sign-up bonus. Further, 5% of citizens have paid taxes with bitcoin, and despite its legal tender status, only 20% of firms—mostly large ones—accept bitcoin and 11.4% report having positive sales in bitcoin. In the first quarter of 2022, we find almost no new adopters and the share of remittances in bitcoin is at its lowest point since Chivo Wallet’s launch. Our results highlight the challenges that cryptocurrencies face to become widely accepted, even after a governmental big push and under favourable circumstances, and are relevant for countries studying their viability as currencies """ So, 60% adoption of Chivo, 20% (total, not of the 60%) still in current use. 20% of firms accept Bitcoin and, as far as I can tell presumably over half, 11.4%, of total firms report positive sales in Bitcoin (figure 8, page 24), with 2% (total) seeing losses and the rest, 87%, reporting no change. It's not the large scale adoption that proponents had hoped for but 20% adoption by people and businesses still seems pretty large. [0] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/BFI_WP_2022-54.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/BFI_WP_2...