4 ms·

If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, I would consider that behaviour a massive success without much further thought. It is

by roenxi 2y ago

If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, I would consider that behaviour a massive success without much further thought. It isn't a huge amount of money at the scale of a national economy but >$1 billion for nothing is a win. Although of course it is unknowable how much of that money was bribe and how much El Salvador would have gotten without additional leverage.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 2y ago
> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour I think you need to refresh your understanding of the difference between a loan and a gift; it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior.
- roenxi 2y ago
  There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find.
  - tw04 2y ago
    The thing they have in exchange is millions of citizens that the entire globe doesn’t want to see starve to death and the US in particular doesn’t want to deal with mass amounts of illegal migrants when their economy collapses.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I don't think current US leadership thinks more then 5 days in advance or cares about people dying.
      - labster 2y ago
        US Leadership is focused on getting us to Mars, all of that takes long-term planning. Sure, a few of us will die in the process, but come on, a flag on Mars! There is a Planet B!
  - pajko 2y ago
    The IMF are tough guys, countries do not want to owe them, but usually don't have better options. They don't give "loans" and impose rather strict policies on everything. https://actionaid.org/publications/2023/fifty-years-failure-imf-debt-and-austerity-africa https://actionaid.org/publications/2023/fifty-years-failure-...
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The IMF are an arm of the US "diplomatic" apparatus. The charitable interpretation of how they operate looks like this: 1) A country is doing something the US doesn't like. 2) The country is in some trouble of their own making. 3) The IMF will come and bail them out if they would be inclined to start doing the things the US likes instead of the things it doesn't like. The uncharitable interpretation of "2)" is "the country is doing alright so the US overtly or covertly causes problems for them so they become in trouble". Basically, the IMF money is the carrot you get for bending the knee. The stick can be the CIA or other things.
      - warkdarrior 2y ago
        So your claim is that US administration through the IMF is forcing El Salvador to drop Bitcoin as a national currency. The same US administration that proposed creating a "national digital asset stockpile"??!? (per https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-on-crypto-digital-asset-stockpile.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-... )
        rvba 2y ago
        USA's own stockpile talk is to pump Doge and help the oligarchs get richer. El Salvador's cryptocurrency was helping other people (not sure if actual citizens), so it had to go.
        AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The IMF agreement requiring them to do this was from December, i.e. the prior US administration.
  - The_Colonel 2y ago
    IMF is the lender of last resort, their loans pretty much always come with strings attached which provide some assurance that the loan will be repaid.
  - motorest 2y ago
    > There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find. I think you need to take a pause and read what you wrote because there's some serious cognitive dissonance in your claims. The IMF is a fund put together and ran by the majority of countries in the world as a lender of last resort. It serves as the world's insurance policy on stability. So when a country like El Salvador knocks on their doors, it's a kin to stating the world they are in trouble and they desperately need a hand. The IMF then provides help, but requires as a tradeoff that the country cleans up their act and actually corrects it's course as to mitigate or eliminate the root causes of their instability. For example, countries that are hugely indebted have to comply with demands to lower their sovereign debt down to manageable levels. Looking at El Salvador, their populist and ill-advised policy to adopt Bitcoin as a currency was a fantastic failure with a tradeoff of being a huge risk factor. Even the most firebrand crypto bro is forced to acknowledge that crypto currencies like Bitcoin have a number of traits that renders them unusable as money, among which the most popular one is the core reason driving it's popularity: volatility. It's to no surprise that one of the basic requirements for stability is to not use a highly volatile and uncontrollable asset as the nation's currency.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      >_> Cheeky FYI, but cognitive dissonance is the "mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory" [0]. While I'm certainly not above that, in this case I don't think I even made and defended enough claims here for them to be contradictory in principle and you don't seem to be arguing that. Consider going with the more straightforward "I disagree!" or "That isn't correct!". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
      - motorest 2y ago
        It is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. For example, you are somehow trying to hold contradictory claims on how Bitcoin's clear failure as a currency is somehow a sign of it's success. The mental disturbance angle is also compounded by the far-fetched conspiracy theories on how El Salvador ditched Bitcoin because "the man" wants to kill it.
- derangedHorse 2y ago
  > it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior. You are both incorrect in different ways. Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador was not a well-adopted initiative and thus they were okay with axing it. The loan was not to deal with the problems of their behavior, but to push more important things in El Salvador's agenda.
laserbeam 2y ago
This statement assumes all costs and losses involved in the experiment were “for nothing”. I highly doubt that’s the case.
motorest 2y ago
> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, (...) I think you need to check up with reality because your scenario has nothing to do with the one reported in the article. If you read the report, you'll understand thay El Salvador reached out to the IMF, a lender of last resort, asking for funding to finance their reform agenda. Among the long list of requirements designed to improve financial health, Bitcoin ceases to be an official currency.
dvngnt_ 2y ago
a billion for a country isn't that good though
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by roenxi 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 2y ago

> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour I think you need to refresh your understanding of the difference between a loan and a gift; it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior.

roenxi 2y ago
There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find.
- tw04 2y ago
  The thing they have in exchange is millions of citizens that the entire globe doesn’t want to see starve to death and the US in particular doesn’t want to deal with mass amounts of illegal migrants when their economy collapses.
  - watwut 2y ago
    I don't think current US leadership thinks more then 5 days in advance or cares about people dying.
    - labster 2y ago
      US Leadership is focused on getting us to Mars, all of that takes long-term planning. Sure, a few of us will die in the process, but come on, a flag on Mars! There is a Planet B!
- pajko 2y ago
  The IMF are tough guys, countries do not want to owe them, but usually don't have better options. They don't give "loans" and impose rather strict policies on everything. https://actionaid.org/publications/2023/fifty-years-failure-imf-debt-and-austerity-africa https://actionaid.org/publications/2023/fifty-years-failure-...
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The IMF are an arm of the US "diplomatic" apparatus. The charitable interpretation of how they operate looks like this: 1) A country is doing something the US doesn't like. 2) The country is in some trouble of their own making. 3) The IMF will come and bail them out if they would be inclined to start doing the things the US likes instead of the things it doesn't like. The uncharitable interpretation of "2)" is "the country is doing alright so the US overtly or covertly causes problems for them so they become in trouble". Basically, the IMF money is the carrot you get for bending the knee. The stick can be the CIA or other things.
    - warkdarrior 2y ago
      So your claim is that US administration through the IMF is forcing El Salvador to drop Bitcoin as a national currency. The same US administration that proposed creating a "national digital asset stockpile"??!? (per https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-on-crypto-digital-asset-stockpile.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/trump-signs-executive-order-... )
      - rvba 2y ago
        USA's own stockpile talk is to pump Doge and help the oligarchs get richer. El Salvador's cryptocurrency was helping other people (not sure if actual citizens), so it had to go.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The IMF agreement requiring them to do this was from December, i.e. the prior US administration.
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  IMF is the lender of last resort, their loans pretty much always come with strings attached which provide some assurance that the loan will be repaid.
- motorest 2y ago
  > There are loans and there are "loans". This isn't El Salvador issuing bonds on the market, it is politics that comes with political conditions. That means they negotiated it and that means they got something in exchange for any leverage they could find. I think you need to take a pause and read what you wrote because there's some serious cognitive dissonance in your claims. The IMF is a fund put together and ran by the majority of countries in the world as a lender of last resort. It serves as the world's insurance policy on stability. So when a country like El Salvador knocks on their doors, it's a kin to stating the world they are in trouble and they desperately need a hand. The IMF then provides help, but requires as a tradeoff that the country cleans up their act and actually corrects it's course as to mitigate or eliminate the root causes of their instability. For example, countries that are hugely indebted have to comply with demands to lower their sovereign debt down to manageable levels. Looking at El Salvador, their populist and ill-advised policy to adopt Bitcoin as a currency was a fantastic failure with a tradeoff of being a huge risk factor. Even the most firebrand crypto bro is forced to acknowledge that crypto currencies like Bitcoin have a number of traits that renders them unusable as money, among which the most popular one is the core reason driving it's popularity: volatility. It's to no surprise that one of the basic requirements for stability is to not use a highly volatile and uncontrollable asset as the nation's currency.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    >_> Cheeky FYI, but cognitive dissonance is the "mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions and actions are inconsistent or contradictory" [0]. While I'm certainly not above that, in this case I don't think I even made and defended enough claims here for them to be contradictory in principle and you don't seem to be arguing that. Consider going with the more straightforward "I disagree!" or "That isn't correct!". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
    - motorest 2y ago
      It is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. For example, you are somehow trying to hold contradictory claims on how Bitcoin's clear failure as a currency is somehow a sign of it's success. The mental disturbance angle is also compounded by the far-fetched conspiracy theories on how El Salvador ditched Bitcoin because "the man" wants to kill it.
derangedHorse 2y ago
> it wasn't an incentive to change the behavior, it was a loan to deal with the problems caused by the behavior. You are both incorrect in different ways. Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador was not a well-adopted initiative and thus they were okay with axing it. The loan was not to deal with the problems of their behavior, but to push more important things in El Salvador's agenda.

laserbeam 2y ago

This statement assumes all costs and losses involved in the experiment were “for nothing”. I highly doubt that’s the case.

motorest 2y ago

> If I could convince someone to give me 1.x billion to change my behaviour, (...) I think you need to check up with reality because your scenario has nothing to do with the one reported in the article. If you read the report, you'll understand thay El Salvador reached out to the IMF, a lender of last resort, asking for funding to finance their reform agenda. Among the long list of requirements designed to improve financial health, Bitcoin ceases to be an official currency.

dvngnt_ 2y ago

a billion for a country isn't that good though

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]