5 ms·

TLDR: We don't know because there's no transparency from the president.

meerita 3y ago
What kind of transparency are you missing? I think it's one of the most transparent projects the presidency has given about. You can access all the information publicly.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Not OP, but it reads like the broader costs of the bitcoin project are guesses (wallet development, promotion, ...), not published numbers - is that all available?
- misnome 3y ago
  As I understand it, there is no public information on what is held and how profitable the endeavour has been, and the specific graph along with the tweet that is linked in this article is a third-part that merely estimates holdings?
- aredox 3y ago
  The article talks at length of the total lack of transparency. The government spokesperson doesn't address the problem at all when probed.
- frereubu 3y ago
  The only information on the actual Bitcoin holdings has been released in tweets by the president, which don't include anything like a Bitcoin wallet address, so there's no proof that the government actually owns them, and no public body is tracking those investments. If the article is true - and I have no reason to doubt those particular details - then this really feels like a "trust me, bro" situation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
faeriechangling 3y ago
Hard to get much more transparent than bitcoin.
- frereubu 3y ago
  You need to read the article - the point is that the president has given no details of the holdings except in tweets, and has not answered questions about the enormous sums of money used to promote the scheme, including a $30 "bonus" for all citizens over 30.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    I don’t much care that the BBC is too incompetent/lazy to do research on assets which are so insanely traceable and transparent and complains that a public body isn’t tracking things. All it says to me is I shouldn’t read the BBC and instead follow journalists like Coffeezilla who actually understand the subject they’re reporting on and spend time researching and expose the financial mismanagement related to crypto by doing actual blockchain analysis. They didn’t even seem to try. They just got some important sounding experts to complain and called it a day.
    - frereubu 3y ago
      It is important for public accountability that a public body tracks these kinds of things. Why should citizens of a country have to become experts in a subject when the government should be transparent about what they're doing in the first place? This is pretty basic stuff. Also, as I said, there are other things they're not being transparent about, like the sums of money used to promote the scheme. You can't find that on the blockchain.
- Yizahi 3y ago
  They aren't using bitcoin, they are trying to use a proprietary closed variant of it, loosely linked to the mainnet.

What kind of transparency are you missing? I think it's one of the most transparent projects the presidency has given about. You can access all the information publicly.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Not OP, but it reads like the broader costs of the bitcoin project are guesses (wallet development, promotion, ...), not published numbers - is that all available?
misnome 3y ago
As I understand it, there is no public information on what is held and how profitable the endeavour has been, and the specific graph along with the tweet that is linked in this article is a third-part that merely estimates holdings?
aredox 3y ago
The article talks at length of the total lack of transparency. The government spokesperson doesn't address the problem at all when probed.
frereubu 3y ago
The only information on the actual Bitcoin holdings has been released in tweets by the president, which don't include anything like a Bitcoin wallet address, so there's no proof that the government actually owns them, and no public body is tracking those investments. If the article is true - and I have no reason to doubt those particular details - then this really feels like a "trust me, bro" situation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

faeriechangling 3y ago

Hard to get much more transparent than bitcoin.

frereubu 3y ago
You need to read the article - the point is that the president has given no details of the holdings except in tweets, and has not answered questions about the enormous sums of money used to promote the scheme, including a $30 "bonus" for all citizens over 30.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I don’t much care that the BBC is too incompetent/lazy to do research on assets which are so insanely traceable and transparent and complains that a public body isn’t tracking things. All it says to me is I shouldn’t read the BBC and instead follow journalists like Coffeezilla who actually understand the subject they’re reporting on and spend time researching and expose the financial mismanagement related to crypto by doing actual blockchain analysis. They didn’t even seem to try. They just got some important sounding experts to complain and called it a day.
  - frereubu 3y ago
    It is important for public accountability that a public body tracks these kinds of things. Why should citizens of a country have to become experts in a subject when the government should be transparent about what they're doing in the first place? This is pretty basic stuff. Also, as I said, there are other things they're not being transparent about, like the sums of money used to promote the scheme. You can't find that on the blockchain.
Yizahi 3y ago
They aren't using bitcoin, they are trying to use a proprietary closed variant of it, loosely linked to the mainnet.