Based on El Salvador's experience and global digital currency implementations, compare key attributes of Bitcoin as legal tender versus Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
Key limitations:
Source: NBER working paper by Alvarez, Argente, and Van Patten
Key advantages:
Source: IMF, World Bank, and global CBDC implementations (Bahamas, Nigeria, Jamaica)
When El Salvador announced that Bitcoin would sit sideâbyâside with the US dollar as official money, the world stopped scrolling. The move was bold, controversial, and instantly turned the tiny Central American nation into a case study for every regulator, economist, and cryptoâenthusiast on the planet. What has happened in the three years since the law took effect? How have governments, scholars, and the broader crypto community responded? This article breaks down the international fallout, the data behind adoption, and what the experiment means for future policy.
El Salvador's Bitcoin legal tender law was signed on 9 June 2021 and became enforceable on 7 September 2021. Article 7 makes Bitcoin a compulsory means of payment: any economic agent must accept it when a buyer offers it, and debts can be discharged in Bitcoin without limitation. The law does not replace the US dollar; instead it creates a dualâcurrency system where both assets are legal tender.
The government built an automatic conversion engine that swaps Bitcoin for dollars at market rates, keeping accounting standards in USâdollar terms. A cap of 21 million Bitcoin was baked into the legislation to avoid supplyâside inflation, and the state rolled out the Chivo Wallet app, offering a $30âBitcoin bonus to jumpâstart usage.
Implementation hinged on three pillars: the Chivo Wallet, a network of Bitcoin ATMs, and an institutional conversion service that instantly turned incoming Bitcoin into dollars for merchants. Early reports showed a spike in wallet downloads - roughly 50 % of households installed Chivo within weeks - but subsequent transaction data painted a different picture.
According to a 2023 NBER working paper by Alvarez, Argente, and Van Patten, only 20 % of firms actually accepted Bitcoin in practice, and merely 5 % of total sales were settled in the cryptocurrency. Moreover, 88 % of merchants immediately converted received Bitcoin into dollars, indicating a lack of confidence in holding the digital asset. The average active user made just 2.59 ATM withdrawals, suggesting that a tiny core of enthusiastic adopters drove most of the systemâs activity.
International regulators were swift to voice concerns. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the law exposed the country to âsignificant macroâeconomic risksâ and called for a comprehensive impact assessment. The World Bank echoed the sentiment, emphasizing potential threats to antiâmoneyâlaundering (AML) frameworks.
| Organization | Primary Concern | Overall Stance |
|---|---|---|
| International Monetary Fund | Fiscal stability, AML compliance | Critical |
| World Bank | Financial inclusion claims vs reality | Critical |
| European Central Bank | Precedent for decentralized legal tender | Cautiously skeptical |
| Bank for International Settlements | Impact on global payment networks | Neutralâtoâcritical |
These bodies share a common thread: Bitcoinâs price volatility, the forcedâtender clause, and the uncertainty around AML enforcement make the experiment a regulatory red flag.
Law professor Dror Goldberg, an expert on compulsory tender law, argues that the requirement for every seller to accept Bitcoin violates basic principles of freedom of contract. In his view, forced tender traditionally compels producers to surrender goods for paper money, but extending that to a decentralized, volatile asset creates âa severe violation of property rights.â Most jurisdictions, including the United States, deliberately avoid forcedâtender statutes for exactly this reason.
Critics also point out that the US dollar remains legal tender without a forcedâacceptance provision; businesses can legally refuse cash in many contexts. By making Bitcoin compulsory while leaving the dollar optional, El Salvador creates an asymmetrical legal framework that many scholars deem unsustainable.
In stark contrast, the global crypto community cheered the law as a historic validation of Bitcoinâs legitimacy. Influencers, venture capitalists, and blockchain entrepreneurs framed the move as âthe first domino in worldwide crypto adoption.â Many argued that a sovereign endorsement would accelerate the development of decentralized finance (DeFi) services, crossâborder remittance solutions, and the broader push for financial sovereignty.
Industry analysts at PwC noted that the law offered a realâworld laboratory for testing Bitcoinâs use in everyday transactions, even if early metrics were underwhelming. Their report emphasized three reasons El Salvador gave for the policy: reducing remittance costs (which affect >20 % of the population), expanding access for the 70 % without formal banking, and spurring domestic wealth circulation.
The NBER study highlighted several key findings:
These numbers suggest that while the legal framework forced a technical rollout, genuine economic uptake remains limited. The promised boost to financial inclusion has not materialized for the most vulnerable groups.
Over 100 countries are now piloting or deploying central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The Bahamas, Nigeria, and Jamaica have already launched sovereign digital tokens that retain government backing and monetary policy control. By contrast, El Salvador handed a portion of its monetary sovereignty to a decentralized network that cannot be steered by the central bank.
This distinction fuels ongoing debate: should developing economies prioritize the stability of a CBDC, or gamble on the transformative potential of a decentralized asset? Most experts now argue that the CBDC model offers a safer path to digital inclusion, whereas El Salvadorâs approach serves as a cautionary tale of volatility and limited realâworld usage.
Policymakers worldwide are watching closely. The mixed results - a headlineâgrabbing legal experiment, but modest onâtheâground impact - suggest that any future attempts to declare Bitcoin legal tender will likely be more measured. Countries considering similar moves are weighing three scenarios:
In the end, the experiment has already reshaped the conversation. International regulators now include âcryptocurrency legal tender riskâ in their policy frameworks, and the academic literature cites El Salvador as the primary case study for sovereign crypto adoption.
President Nayib BoluĂąa argued that Bitcoinâs decentralized nature would protect the economy from external shocks, lower remittance fees, and signal a break from traditional banking systems. At the time, no CBDC existed that could meet those goals, so Bitcoin was seen as the fastest way to achieve a digitalâfirst vision.
The IMF highlighted three risks: (1) Bitcoinâs price volatility could destabilize public finances; (2) the forcedâtender clause undermines contractual freedom; and (3) the legal framework complicates AML and counterâterrorism financing monitoring.
Data shows limited impact. While Chivo Wallet downloads were high initially, only a small fraction of the unbanked population began using it regularly. Most active users were already banked, educated, and techâsavvy.
Legally, yes - Article 7 mandates acceptance. In practice, compliance is low; only about oneâfifth of businesses report actually taking Bitcoin, and many convert it to dollars instantly.
The biggest lesson is that legal mandates alone wonât drive adoption. Successful digital currency strategies need stable value, clear AML frameworks, and genuine incentives for both consumers and merchants. Many analysts now view CBDCs as a safer route for achieving similar inclusion goals.
The data is clear: forced adoption doesn't work. El Salvador didn't create a financial revolution-it created a PR stunt with a $30 incentive and a buggy app. Real monetary systems aren't built on viral gimmicks.
They didn't choose Bitcoin because they believed in it. They chose it because the IMF and World Bank were watching. This was a psychological play-make the West panic so they'd stop meddling. The real goal? Sovereignty through chaos.
Look, I know it looks like a flop-but think bigger. Half the population downloaded the app. That's massive for a country with limited tech access. People are learning. The conversion to dollars? That's just the first step. Imagine if they kept it. Imagine if they started using it for remittances. This isn't about today-it's about seeding the future. We gotta give it time. The crypto revolution doesn't start with everyone on board. It starts with one brave country saying 'what if?'
Is there any peer-reviewed longitudinal study tracking the macroeconomic impact beyond the NBER paper? The IMFâs concerns are valid, but without longitudinal data, we're interpreting a snapshot as a trend. Has inflation accelerated? Has dollarization weakened? Has capital flight increased? These are the metrics that matter.
so like... they gave people free btc and now everyone just uses it to buy tacos?? đ
Forcing people to accept a volatile asset is just theft by regulation
I think this is actually a quiet win. Even if only 5% of transactions are in Bitcoin, the fact that people are even trying it changes the conversation. Maybe next time, the next country will do it better. Progress isn't always loud.
They're lying. The US government paid them to do this. Bitcoin is a surveillance tool. Every transaction is tracked. They want to control the poor. This isn't freedom-it's a digital leash.
India should never do this. Bitcoin is for rich Americans. We have real problems like poverty and corruption. This is just show.
How adorable. A tiny nation with a GDP smaller than a single Silicon Valley startup thinks it can outsmart the global financial order. The Chivo Wallet probably has more bugs than a 2007 Android app. Adorable. Quaint. Incredibly naive.
It's not about the numbers. It's about the message. Someone stood up and said 'we're trying something new.' That matters more than you think.
The real irony is that the IMFâs critique mirrors their own institutional inertia. They warn of volatility, but CBDCs are just state-controlled, programmable money with zero decentralization. The fact that El Salvadorâs experiment forced this conversation is the only win here. The rest is just noise.
People say it failed but they forget the first step was just getting people to think about money differently. That's the real victory
So the law says merchants must accept Bitcoin⌠but 88% instantly convert it to dollars? Thatâs like mandating people to eat kale and then throwing it in the trash. Brilliant policy. đ
wait so the app got downloaded by half the country but like 60% never used it again?? that's wild. i feel like this was a giant tech demo that no one actually wanted
Okay but what if the real win is that now every central bank has to answer the question: 'What if we did this?' Thatâs the legacy. Even if it flopped, it changed the game. Thatâs what pioneers do.
I'm a blockchain analyst and cryptocurrency educator based in Perth. I research DeFi protocols and layer-1 ecosystems and write practical pieces on coins, exchanges, and airdrops. I also advise Web3 startups and enjoy translating complex tokenomics into clear insights.
There is no official HyperGraph (HGT) airdrop as of 2025. Claims of free HGT tokens are scams. Learn how to spot fake airdrops, protect your wallet, and find real alternatives in Web3.
Read More
Tunisia's Central Bank bans all cryptocurrency transactions since 2018, with prison terms for violations. Yet it quietly tests blockchain tech through a regulatory sandbox. Here's how the policy works-and why it hasn't changed.
Read More
The NFTP airdrop by NFT TOKEN PILOT has no official presence as of November 2025. Learn how to spot fake airdrops, avoid scams, and find safer ways to earn free crypto tokens.
Read More
Comments (16)