> Under the terms of the agreement being finalised with the Washington-based fund, El Salvador would drop a legal requirement for businesses to accept bitcoin as payment, making it voluntary to do so.
BTC as a payment method was not being forced on consumers, rather it was being forced on businesses by compelling them to accept it as payment.
I'm not disputing your main point that forcing businesses to accept it is less desirable than simply allowing them to, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't being forced on everyone.
Sure. You trade in the currency the seller invoices in.
Using USD as their currency though does mean there is no possibility of them being invoiced in their own national currency even in cases where it might make sense.
Of course, most trade is invoiced in USD regardless.
> Using USD as their currency though does mean there is no possibility of them being invoiced in their own national currency even in cases where it might make sense
Plenty of countries use the dollar alongside their national currency, formally and informally [1]. Plenty use it without making it legal tender.
Technically "legal tender" doesn't mean shops have to accept it. "Legal tender" means that it can be used to pay a debt.
A dollar being legal tender means that, if A owes B money, and they pay in dollars, then if B tries to sue A for non-payment because they wanted payment in gold, the court will rule that A has satisfied the debt and owes B nothing.
Seems generally positive. They are getting help from the IMF, and the value of their bitcoin bag has increased greatly. And removing the requirement of accepting bitcoin will likely be unnoticed by most.
So, nothing serious