Do you think that the adoption of Bitcoin in poor countries as a means of payment can be a source of conflict
I asked this question because many poor countries believe they are in democracy and enjoy freedom. However, the reality is that there is still some form of domination by former colonial powers. They are free on paper, but not financially. That’s why I wonder if one day one of these countries decides to adopt Bitcoin as a means of payment and whether this could lead to conflicts.
Adopting Bitcoin could offer several advantages, such as increased financial inclusion, reduced transaction costs, and protection against inflation. However, these benefits may also raise tensions with established financial systems and governments.
Do you think a poor country will experience peace if it makes such a decision?
A that is still under the direct or indirect control of another strong nation cannot be financially independent. They will have to get approval from their colonial masters before they make any policy. This was the case in the Central African Republic when they adopted Bitcoin as a legal tender. This African country is under the control of France and they didn't even have a central bank. The adoption of Bitcoin caused a lot of conflict between CAR, France and other Francophone countries in Africa. The policy conflicted with the neo-colonial goals of France which made CAR repeal the law after a few months.
However, El Salvador was able to withstand and overcome the pressures from the international Organisation to limit its exposure to Bitcoin. Therefore regardless of the colonial ties, a strong-willed leader like Bukele can still make a difference.