Money, Currency & Crypto

[Urbandreamer]

For some unearthly reason the ETF thread, a thread upon a traditional fund that happens to invest in bitcoin devolved into a debate upon currency.

I thought that a separate thread might serve better.

I’ll leave crypto until the end, as I think the basics of money and currency need considering first.

Money:

It is “currently” accepted that the three principles (uses) of money are:

Store of value:
Fiat has been really bad at this for getting on for 100 years. So much so that everyone is “monetizing” other things. They buy debt (government bonds), index trackers (stock market investments that remove the need to consider the underlying companies) or property (my house / Buy to let portfolio is my pension).

Unit of account:
This is NOT the same as what you pay. Historically there has never been Marks or Ora coined in England, but they were a unit of account at one point. Today a bank may calculate and accrue interest in fractions of a penny, but there is no such currency. The term means what it says. It doesn't mean currency.

Medium of exchange:
This is what use to be currency. The notes and coins currently accepted. An old £20 note may be money, you can change it at the bank. But it is not currency nor a medium of exchange.

Notice the obvious flaw. These definitions clearly predate electronic/online payments or credit cards!

Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee were always both right.

So arguably currency no longer just means the notes and coins currently accepted, but needs extending.

Here we have the problem that surfaced in the ETF thread.

Is currency defined as fiat? One person seemed to think so.
It it what the vendor accepts, another thought that.
Is it what a vendor quotes in? I.E if you order online from the USA, you may be quoted and charged in pounds, but they will be paid in USD.
Is something not a currency because it isn’t issued by a state, even if some vendors accept it? You know like local exchange trading schemes.
Is something not a currency because a particular vendor or ones in an area doesn’t accept it?

If I travel to Florida and buy a hat with my credit/debit card, what is THE currency? Is it USD or GBP? I certainly paid GBP. I would argue that both USD and GBP were acting as currency in the transaction.

Crypto: finally.

OK, first let us be clear the term crypto currencies is an incorrect catch all term that includes some things that are not intended to be currencies.

The first and best known is bitcoin, which was always intended as a medium of exchange (currency).
You can transact, passing BTC to someone. Other mechanisms exist though. Just like the Florida example you can use an exchange and debit card if the vendor wants USD. Alternatively you can use lightning for really small amounts of BTC and fast transactions, if the vendor accepts it and some do.

I’m not convinced that BTC was intended to be a store of value, though it certainly seems to have become one.

Is BTC a unit of account? That would be a really silly question. The stock broker II allows you to have multiple currency accounts to trade in foreign shares and receive dividends. Likewise a crypto exchange will hold multiple accounts for you to store your GBP, Euro, USD and crypto. The only changes are when funds are added subtracted or exchanged. The amount of bitcoin is measured in bitcoin, though it’s value is also displayed in the chosen fiat for convenience.

OK, useful comments, thoughts or links?

I'll kick it off with a book link.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Money-F ... ext&sr=1-1

[Bubblesofearth]

For some unearthly reason the ETF thread, a thread upon a traditional fund that happens to invest in bitcoin devolved into a debate upon currency.

I thought that a separate thread might serve better.

I’ll leave crypto until the end, as I think the basics of money and currency need considering first.

Money:

It is “currently” accepted that the three principles (uses) of money are:

Store of value:
Fiat has been really bad at this for getting on for 100 years. So much so that everyone is “monetizing” other things. They buy debt (government bonds), index trackers (stock market investments that remove the need to consider the underlying companies) or property (my house / Buy to let portfolio is my pension).

Unit of account:
This is NOT the same as what you pay. Historically there has never been Marks or Ora coined in England, but they were a unit of account at one point. Today a bank may calculate and accrue interest in fractions of a penny, but there is no such currency. The term means what it says. It doesn't mean currency.

Medium of exchange:
This is what use to be currency. The notes and coins currently accepted. An old £20 note may be money, you can change it at the bank. But it is not currency nor a medium of exchange.

Notice the obvious flaw. These definitions clearly predate electronic/online payments or credit cards!

Tweedle dum and Tweedle dee were always both right.

So arguably currency no longer just means the notes and coins currently accepted, but needs extending.

Here we have the problem that surfaced in the ETF thread.

Is currency defined as fiat? One person seemed to think so.
It it what the vendor accepts, another thought that.
Is it what a vendor quotes in? I.E if you order online from the USA, you may be quoted and charged in pounds, but they will be paid in USD.
Is something not a currency because it isn’t issued by a state, even if some vendors accept it? You know like local exchange trading schemes.
Is something not a currency because a particular vendor or ones in an area doesn’t accept it?

If I travel to Florida and buy a hat with my credit/debit card, what is THE currency? Is it USD or GBP? I certainly paid GBP. I would argue that both USD and GBP were acting as currency in the transaction.

Crypto: finally.

OK, first let us be clear the term crypto currencies is an incorrect catch all term that includes some things that are not intended to be currencies.

The first and best known is bitcoin, which was always intended as a medium of exchange (currency).
You can transact, passing BTC to someone. Other mechanisms exist though. Just like the Florida example you can use an exchange and debit card if the vendor wants USD. Alternatively you can use lightning for really small amounts of BTC and fast transactions, if the vendor accepts it and some do.

I’m not convinced that BTC was intended to be a store of value, though it certainly seems to have become one.

Is BTC a unit of account? That would be a really silly question. The stock broker II allows you to have multiple currency accounts to trade in foreign shares and receive dividends. Likewise a crypto exchange will hold multiple accounts for you to store your GBP, Euro, USD and crypto. The only changes are when funds are added subtracted or exchanged. The amount of bitcoin is measured in bitcoin, though it’s value is also displayed in the chosen fiat for convenience.

OK, useful comments, thoughts or links?

I'll kick it off with a book link.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Money-F ... ext&sr=1-1

IMO the currency of a country is;

1. That which goods are priced in and are accepted in exchange for. In economic terms if the flow of goods/services are seen to move in a clockwise direction then the flow of money is counter-clockwise.

2. The form of money in which Government of the country collects taxes.

Sterling is currency in the UK, dollars in the US etc.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

IMO the currency of a country is;

1. That which goods are priced in and are accepted in exchange for. In economic terms if the flow of goods/services are seen to move in a clockwise direction then the flow of money is counter-clockwise.

2. The form of money in which Government of the country collects taxes.

Sterling is currency in the UK, dollars in the US etc.

BoE

Well.... Arguably you are right for the UK and US. But you have dictated the argument with your choice of "the currency of a country" rather than answering "what is currency".

What is the currency of El Salvador?
How about Argentina, which now allows contracts to be settled in bitcoin?
What of China, you did know that it has two currencies?
What of Costa Rica, it has it's own state currency but the USD is widely used there.
Zimbabwe and Timor Laste (two and three currencies used)?
What of "free ports". These are special economic zones in many countries?

Note, some may, with good reason, argue that many in El Salvador prefer the USD, but they can pay tax in either USD or bitcoin.

I also totally reject your tax argument. Americans who work in the UK pay taxes in USD. They are required to pay US tax regardless of where they work. The argument only works if we accept that we are talking "the currency of the country" because they work and shop in the UK.

I could also make the argument that HMRC would disagree with you.
Were I to have bitcoin that I exchanged for ethereum, HMRC would tax me based upon the theoretical GBP gain despite the fact that neither has been used as a currency at that point.
CGT and VAT is charged upon the VALUE, not what is exchanged. It's explicit in the legislation.

Your tax argument is NOT about currency but about "legal tender".

[Urbandreamer]

Additional point about "the currency of a country".

Próspera, a special economic zone in Honduras, calculates it's taxes in bitcoin. I believe though that the tax is paid in either USD or Honduras lempira.

I don't know what the most common currency used there is, but I think that their choice of "unit of account" might hint at it.

[Bubblesofearth]

Well.... Arguably you are right for the UK and US. But you have dictated the argument with your choice of "the currency of a country" rather than answering "what is currency".

I thought I gave a clear answer. Currency in any given country is what goods/services are priced in and what is accepted in payment for them. As I also said, it moves counter to goods and services. This is the case for sterling in the UK. Sterling is the currency of the UK. The fact that UK taxes have to be paid in sterling simply reinforces this. If Americans living in the UK have to pay taxes to the US government in dollars that does nothing to negate the above.

If BTC is used in this way in some countries then, yes, it would be considered that countries currency.

BoE

[Spet0789]

This discussion about countries is a red herring in my view.

Obviously there are multiple currencies. They all meet the three definitions to a different degree. Some are only of any use as such in their home country. The North Korean currency is probably the best example. At the other end of the scale is the USD. It is a ‘perfect’ currency in the US and a few other places. Elsewhere in the world it’s somewhat effective. I am sure you could pay a London taxi driver in USD for example, albeit with a hefty ‘hassle charge’.

BTC is a pretty ineffective currency everywhere on the planet.

[Urbandreamer]

This discussion about countries is a red herring in my view.

Obviously there are multiple currencies. They all meet the three definitions to a different degree. Some are only of any use as such in their home country. The North Korean currency is probably the best example. At the other end of the scale is the USD. It is a ‘perfect’ currency in the US and a few other places. Elsewhere in the world it’s somewhat effective. I am sure you could pay a London taxi driver in USD for example, albeit with a hefty ‘hassle charge’.

BTC is a pretty ineffective currency everywhere on the planet.

While I disagree with the final line, I totally agree with the rest. Have a rec.
Of course the final line is a bald statement.

Some may question, with some merit, that if the unit of account is USD, or GBP, while transactions are in BTC, is BTC the currency?
You didn't make that argument, or indeed any other. You simply made an unsupported claim.

FWIW, we can turn the USD-GBP/BTC argument upon it's head by turning back time to the gold standard. At that point was USD or GDP the currency, or was it gold? Personally I would claim that the transactional token, historically GDP or USD, was the currency.

BTW, my "hassle charge" for using BTC to buy my beer using a VISA card on Thursday was 150 Satts or 5p at the exchange rate when I bought the beer.

May I ask where you see digital transactions in your view? The 'hassle charge' to pay the London taxi USD by credit card would be a Fx charge. That's just under 3% on my GBP credit card, which I don't see as hefty.

[Spet0789]

This discussion about countries is a red herring in my view.

Obviously there are multiple currencies. They all meet the three definitions to a different degree. Some are only of any use as such in their home country. The North Korean currency is probably the best example. At the other end of the scale is the USD. It is a ‘perfect’ currency in the US and a few other places. Elsewhere in the world it’s somewhat effective. I am sure you could pay a London taxi driver in USD for example, albeit with a hefty ‘hassle charge’.

BTC is a pretty ineffective currency everywhere on the planet.

While I disagree with the final line, I totally agree with the rest. Have a rec.
Of course the final line is a bald statement.

Some may question, with some merit, that if the unit of account is USD, or GBP, while transactions are in BTC, is BTC the currency?
You didn't make that argument, or indeed any other. You simply made an unsupported claim.

FWIW, we can turn the USD-GBP/BTC argument upon it's head by turning back time to the gold standard. At that point was USD or GDP the currency, or was it gold? Personally I would claim that the transactional token, historically GDP or USD, was the currency.

BTW, my "hassle charge" for using BTC to buy my beer using a VISA card on Thursday was 150 Satts or 5p at the exchange rate when I bought the beer.

May I ask where you see digital transactions in your view? The 'hassle charge' to pay the London taxi USD by credit card would be a Fx charge. That's just under 3% on my GBP credit card, which I don't see as hefty.

Unless I misunderstand, you didn’t use BTC to buy a beer. What happened was that your Visa card paid in GBP and automatically triggered a transaction to sell some BTC to fund it.

You could do exactly the same (provided you used a platform which supported fractional shares) with an investment account holding Apple shares. But you haven’t paid for your beer with Apple shares.

I think you may be confusing what a currency is because every happened under the hood.

[Tedx]

Let's face it, Bitcoin is a token. Or a gambling chip.

[Urbandreamer]

Unless I misunderstand, you didn’t use BTC to buy a beer. What happened was that your Visa card paid in GBP and automatically triggered a transaction to sell some BTC to fund it.

You could do exactly the same (provided you used a platform which supported fractional shares) with an investment account holding Apple shares. But you haven’t paid for your beer with Apple shares.

I think you may be confusing what a currency is because every happened under the hood.

I'm not aware of a brokering account that allows you to use shares as currency, though I am aware that some US accounts allow you to access cash in a brokers account via a card. Can you provide a link, out of interest.

However while from one point of view you are correct in the BTC being sold on Thursday. From another, what happens when a Tourist from the USA spends using a card in the UK? Dollars are arguably sold to buy pounds. You can't magically make a dollar into a pound. There needs to be a transaction to provide the pounds used to buy the beer.

Everything does happen under the hood. Hence my question about your opinion of such digital transactions that don't involve BTC but do involve more than one currency. What is the currency of the transaction? Is it the currency that the vendor uses, the currency of the Tourist, or both?

[Bubblesofearth]

I'm not aware of a brokering account that allows you to use shares as currency, though I am aware that some US accounts allow you to access cash in a brokers account via a card. Can you provide a link, out of interest.

However while from one point of view you are correct in the BTC being sold on Thursday. From another, what happens when a Tourist from the USA spends using a card in the UK? Dollars are arguably sold to buy pounds. You can't magically make a dollar into a pound. There needs to be a transaction to provide the pounds used to buy the beer.

Everything does happen under the hood. Hence my question about your opinion of such digital transactions that don't involve BTC but do involve more than one currency. What is the currency of the transaction? Is it the currency that the vendor uses, the currency of the Tourist, or both?

Are you not falling into the trap of deciding BTC is a currency and then torturing definitions and digging up obscure examples to try to justify this decision?

It's really not that complex. If you are buying stuff in the UK you are doing so with sterling. If you are a tourist then your currency ($ or whatever)/BTC/gold/shares will need to be sold to raise the sterling required for the purchase. Vendors by and large want to receive sterling for their goods and services. Dollars, for example, are a currency but just not one that is widely accepted in the UK. Try going to Tesco and handing over dollars for your groceries.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

Are you not falling into the trap of deciding BTC is a currency and then torturing definitions and digging up obscure examples to try to justify this decision?

It's really not that complex. If you are buying stuff in the UK you are doing so with sterling. If you are a tourist then your currency ($ or whatever)/BTC/gold/shares will need to be sold to raise the sterling required for the purchase. Vendors by and large want to receive sterling for their goods and services. Dollars, for example, are a currency but just not one that is widely accepted in the UK. Try going to Tesco and handing over dollars for your groceries.

BoE

I have bought beer paying in BTC over lightning. Not on Thursday, but I have done it in the past. I've remarked upon the fact. Are you really claiming that is not true

Hence my question about what makes a currency, when you made that claim.
I pointed out that you can't spend pound notes in the pub and asked if that meant that they were not a currency. The same point you make about dollars with Tesco's.
I've asked about how spending using a credit or debit card is viewed. It does enable you to spend dollars in the pub or Tesco's.

They are questions, I'm not the one torturing definitions. I'm asking what the definition is.

Some vendors DON'T want pound notes. Some vendors do want BTC. Even some in the UK.

Look I am aware that there are people on TLF who don't want crypto, but imagine for a moment that you are a person who does want crypto. You have a customer who can either pay in BTC or GBP. Let us imagine that they don't have a preference, why not offer to accept the BTC rather than demand GBP and then use that to buy BTC?

This does happen. I was talking to someone on Thursday who has started accepting BTC on his market stall. As you might guess not many customers have take advantage of the offer, but it is available. So when one turns up, is it NOT a currency because he will also accept GBP? Are pound note currency because he will accept them, or not because the pub wont?

I accept your statement that BTC can be a currency in countries that use it as a currency. What confuses me is your opinion that only one currency can exist within a country, or more specifically within the UK.

Here is a map showing some places that accept BTC for payment.
https://btcmap.org/map#13/51.52535/-0.13149

[Bubblesofearth]

I have bought beer paying in BTC over lightning. Not on Thursday, but I have done it in the past. I've remarked upon the fact. Are you really claiming that is not true

Not at all. I don't even know what 'paying in BTC over lightning' means. I'm sure there are places in the UK and online that accept BTC but it's pretty much at the fringe.

Hence my question about what makes a currency, when you made that claim.
I pointed out that you can't spend pound notes in the pub and asked if that meant that they were not a currency. The same point you make about dollars with Tesco's.
I've asked about how spending using a credit or debit card is viewed. It does enable you to spend dollars in the pub or Tesco's.

They are questions, I'm not the one torturing definitions. I'm asking what the definition is.

Some vendors DON'T want pound notes. Some vendors do want BTC. Even some in the UK.

OK, fair point but I would still say that it is sterling that is the currency. The fact that some places don't want physical notes and coins doesn't negate this. It just means they would prefer electronic transfer. This transfer occurs without having to sell anything - pounds in your bank account are moved to pounds in the vendors account. There is no intermediate good or currency.

Look I am aware that there are people on TLF who don't want crypto, but imagine for a moment that you are a person who does want crypto. You have a customer who can either pay in BTC or GBP. Let us imagine that they don't have a preference, why not offer to accept the BTC rather than demand GBP and then use that to buy BTC?

This does happen. I was talking to someone on Thursday who has started accepting BTC on his market stall. As you might guess not many customers have take advantage of the offer, but it is available. So when one turns up, is it NOT a currency because he will also accept GBP? Are pound note currency because he will accept them, or not because the pub wont?

I accept your statement that BTC can be a currency in countries that use it as a currency. What confuses me is your opinion that only one currency can exist within a country, or more specifically within the UK.

Here is a map showing some places that accept BTC for payment.
https://btcmap.org/map#13/51.52535/-0.13149

Again, this is pretty fringe activity. Sure, more than one currency can exist in a country but to be termed currency there has to be general acceptance of it for purchases. IMO at least.

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

I have bought beer paying in BTC over lightning. Not on Thursday, but I have done it in the past. I've remarked upon the fact. Are you really claiming that is not true

Not at all. I don't even know what 'paying in BTC over lightning' means. I'm sure there are places in the UK and online that accept BTC but it's pretty much at the fringe.

BoE

Sorry, there is another on TLF that claims that using lightning means that you are not transacting in BTC, so I try to be clear.

Traditionally BTC transactions occur "on-chain", but this is slow and is currently expensive.

Lightning works by tying up some bitcoin and spending fractions of the BTC that is tied up. It can be seen as a bit like running a tab and paying the total at the "end of the night", reducing transaction costs. Except that the end point can be delayed as long as required and new BTC can be tied up to continue. Meanwhile it's not quite like running a tab as the fractions paid can be spent by the person that you paid, multiple people can be paid and the tab can be reduced by payments to you.

Ignoring the technicalities, the vendor produces a QR code which you scan with an app running on your phone. Moment's later the transaction goes through. It's how things work in El Salvador. Indeed a reporter had his Starbucks coffee paid for him internationally simply by sending a photo of the QR code shortly after bitcoin became legal tender there.
(There are more uses, but let's just stick to shops)

Think of it as the bitcoin equivalent of a debit card. Given that at least one implementation is custodial (think bank account), that is the nearest equivalent.
There are non-custodial (be your own bank) lightning implementations as well, which is what I use.

Ideologically though bitcoin is CASH. You can carry it on your person or even in your head. True to the ideology, large amounts should not be kept on exchanges or in ETF's. It's supposed to BE a medium of exchange, rather than unit of account for exchange.

Hope this helps and that you made it to the end.

[ignotus20]

Are you not falling into the trap of deciding BTC is a currency and then torturing definitions and digging up obscure examples to try to justify this decision?

This is a (very) fair summary.

Another less charitable perspective might be that the idea that BTC is a currency is a delusional libertarian fantasy. Something like bitcoin was discussed in "The Sovereign Individual" by William Rees-Mogg (father of Jacob) which is one of the reasons why so many libertarians are big fans.

If bitcoin fails as a currency then it is merely a digital asset with no intrinsic value - a bit like a deep out of the money option with no expiry date. The proponents of bitcoin are emotionally, intellectually and financially invested in its success. The outcome described is devastating for them and they will come up with all kinds of bizarre and tortuous reasons to avoid conceding that the experiment has been an unsuccessful one. BTC has not been widely adopted as a currency, form of money, unit of exchange etc. that most people are familiar with. This is simply a fact.

I'm not sure why bitcoin proponents don't focus on the speculative nature of the instrument (which is more interesting). Although I guess acknowledging that would makes their ultimate ambition even harder to realise than it is already.

[Urbandreamer]

Are you not falling into the trap of deciding BTC is a currency and then torturing definitions and digging up obscure examples to try to justify this decision?

This is a (very) fair summary.

Another less charitable perspective might be that the idea that BTC is a currency is a delusional libertarian fantasy. Something like bitcoin was discussed in "The Sovereign Individual" by William Rees-Mogg (father of Jacob) which is one of the reasons why so many libertarians are big fans.

If bitcoin fails as a currency then it is merely a digital asset with no intrinsic value - a bit like a deep out of the money option with no expiry date. The proponents of bitcoin are emotionally, intellectually and financially invested in its success. The outcome described is devastating for them and they will come up with all kinds of bizarre and tortuous reasons to avoid conceding that the experiment has been an unsuccessful one. BTC has not been widely adopted as a currency, form of money, unit of exchange etc. that most people are familiar with. This is simply a fact.

I'm not sure why bitcoin proponents don't focus on the speculative nature of the instrument (which is more interesting). Although I guess acknowledging that would makes their ultimate ambition even harder to realise than it is already.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Can I add my own.
Something like crypto currencies (competing currencies that are not under state control) was proposed by F Hayek (better known for his book "The road to serfdom"), back in 1976.
The Denationalisation of Money
Oh, if you don't recognize the name Hayek, here is an amusing rap battle purportedly between him and his friend Keynes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

[Bubblesofearth]

Ignoring the technicalities, the vendor produces a QR code which you scan with an app running on your phone. Moment's later the transaction goes through. It's how things work in El Salvador. Indeed a reporter had his Starbucks coffee paid for him internationally simply by sending a photo of the QR code shortly after bitcoin became legal tender there.

A reality check on El Salvador;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67637245

Independent Salvadorean economist Tatiana Marroquin says: "Bukele's victorious tone about the increase in the price of Bitcoin, it is quite illusory.
"It doesn't offset the economic costs of the Bitcoin project."
About $200m of public money has been spent trying to persuade citizens to embrace the digital currency, Ms Marroquin says.
"It's a total failure," she says. "Almost no-one in El Salvador uses Bitcoin - not even in tourism does it seem to be an attraction."

BoE

[Urbandreamer]

Ignoring the technicalities, the vendor produces a QR code which you scan with an app running on your phone. Moment's later the transaction goes through. It's how things work in El Salvador. Indeed a reporter had his Starbucks coffee paid for him internationally simply by sending a photo of the QR code shortly after bitcoin became legal tender there.

A reality check on El Salvador;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-67637245

Independent Salvadorean economist Tatiana Marroquin says: "Bukele's victorious tone about the increase in the price of Bitcoin, it is quite illusory.
"It doesn't offset the economic costs of the Bitcoin project."
About $200m of public money has been spent trying to persuade citizens to embrace the digital currency, Ms Marroquin says.
"It's a total failure," she says. "Almost no-one in El Salvador uses Bitcoin - not even in tourism does it seem to be an attraction."

BoE

Morning.

You are confusing politics with technology here.

Look, there ARE questions and issues about Bukele. Ignoring him and sticking to bitcoin in El Salvador, there obviously were costs, would anyone expect otherwise?

Would you like to talk his human rights record? His democratic record?

My point was it's in every shop there and as a payment method, WORKS.

OK, forget El Salvador, as clearly the politics distracts. How about paying for a McDonald's in Switzerland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlhvnpi2ukA
No outcry from the IMF or World Bank about Switzerland.

Or this about Swiss crypto from before El Salvador went bitcoin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgrD0Bse70A

Oh and a recent food tour (better than a Big Mac), paying using BTC over lightning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx4VuGHh38U

[Urbandreamer]

You know that I didn't want to talk politics, but I was looking for something else and found this link.
It's only slightly bitcoin related.

Instead it's about interviewing people in a democratic country about events that happened there fairly recently.
https://twitter.com/PeterMcCormack/stat ... 9282637237

I would imagine that it's going to make it difficult to produce the intended documentary.

[Bubblesofearth]

Morning.

You are confusing politics with technology here.

Look, there ARE questions and issues about Bukele. Ignoring him and sticking to bitcoin in El Salvador, there obviously were costs, would anyone expect otherwise?

Would you like to talk his human rights record? His democratic record?

My point was it's in every shop there and as a payment method, WORKS.

OK, forget El Salvador, as clearly the politics distracts. How about paying for a McDonald's in Switzerland?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlhvnpi2ukA
No outcry from the IMF or World Bank about Switzerland.

Or this about Swiss crypto from before El Salvador went bitcoin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgrD0Bse70A

Oh and a recent food tour (better than a Big Mac), paying using BTC over lightning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx4VuGHh38U

The point about the El Salvador link wasn't political but technological, i.e. that few people are using BTC. If people don't use a technology then it's failed in its purpose.

Gold can be used in some places around the world, including some US states, to buy stuff. Do you consider gold to be currency?

BoE