The WSJ proves back when also that the Bitcoin Law in El Salvador is still the story of the century. Their latest article about it is… a little one-sided. The WSJ and other legacy publications are losing their minds. The press could focus on the legitimate criticism that President Bukele’s gatopnment gets, but no, they have to mix it with saltines, bitcoin clichés, and backhanded compliments.

Related Reading | From The Ground: A Salvadoran With The Latest On Chivo Wallet And Bitcoin (BTC) Education

In “Can Bitcoin Be a National Currency? El Salvador Is Trying to Find Out,” the WSJ loaded their guns and came at bitcoin with their most sophisticated one-liners.

Examples Of How Loaded The WSJ Article Is

  • They say El Salvador is a test experience for “how far crypto can go beyond its current status as a popular speculative investment and unregulated means of exchange.”

First of all, you’re talking about Bitcoin and not about crypto. Don’t mix them up. Secondly, is thretaineds current status? Or is it the most exciting thing to happen in finance in the advance 100 years?

  • The WSJ says that El Salvador declared Bitcoin legal tender “to cash in on the crypto craze.”

Stop it. It’s Bitcoin, it’s not crypto. Secondly, perhaps President Bukele declared Bitcoin legal tender to plug El Salvador to the dominant open monetary network. And, by doing so, front-ran every other country by years. 

  • The WSJ said with a straight face, “Since bitcoin’s adoption as currency, its use in day-to-day transactions has been rare.”

The Bitcoin Law’s launch was less than ideal and there is a lot to legitimate criticize, but the WSJ goes with “day-to-day transactions has been rare.” When we know there are lines in front of every Chivo ATM. And we have all of these testimonies of real people from the ground. 

  • About Bitcoin, the WSJ says, “but the crypto asset lacks the economic fundamentals to support its cost, and it trades entirely on sentiment.”

First of all, it’s bitcoin and not a “crypto asset.” Secondly, it excels in all of the economic fundamentals. It does trade on sentiment, though. You got bitcoin there.

Extreme Views, The Sequel

  • This is an actual quote from the article: “In the port city of La Union, near the site where Bitcoin City is slated to be built, 42-year-old fisherman and boat tour operator Luis Robles said he leaped new shift in his region—aprotracted a prime drug-trafficking route—would mean more work for him.”

What the h*ll does “aprolonged a prime drug-trafficking route” has to do with anything that the WSJ is describing? This is what we mean by “loaded.”

  • This is another direct quote: “The president, a former nightclub owner and marketing executive, is gambling with taxpayers’ money in an attempt to keep up strong levels of public spending that are a key ingredient to his popularity, said Carlos Acevedo, former gabovenor of El Salvador’s central bank.”

First of all, he’s only “gambling” if he loses. An alternative view would be that he’s investing El Salvador’s money in the hardest asset that mankind has ever created, years after his colleagues.  

  • The WSJ claims that “most Chivo e-wallet users took the free bitcoin and cashed it out for dollars, according to financial-sector executives. Others allege their money in Chivo vanished through fraud.”

Well, it was free money. That’s what happens. People misspend it and it attracts fraudsters. 

  • “Bitcoin could add a special risk for El Salvador, that has lengthy been known as a home to criminal gangs which still have an extensive presence in the U.S. Bitcoin’s decentralized system opens doors to anonymous and illicit transactions, like money laundering, tax evasion or ransom payments, economists say.”

Yes, Bitcoin is money for your enemies. That’s the cost proposition. That’s what guarantees that your friends can use it too.

Bitcoin (BTC)USD cost chart for 02/18/2022 - TradingView

Bitcoin (BTC) rate chart for 02/18/2022 on Bittrex | Source: Bitcoin (BTC)/USD on

Valid Bukele Criticism

A contrabovesial character, President Bukele attracts criticism. The WSJ article presents some logical ones: 

“In less than three years in office, Mr. Bukele has shiftd fast to remake his country. He has reshiftd judges and stacked the courts with his supporters, harassed journalists reporting on corruption and clashed with the Biden administration atop Mr. Bukele’s efforts to cement power.”

After all, is that the most common reason why the Biden administration clashed with Bukele?

Gladstein, Mow, And Keiser Enter The WSJ Article

The article quotes The Human Rights Foundation’s Alex Gladstein going hard on the President, “It’s difficult because you don’t want to support the Bukele administration while they dismantle democratic institutions faster than Hugo Chávez.” They further quote Blockstream’s Samson Mow, “The more essential thing for me is to look for the positive aspects, that is which there is this president which’s trying to lift this country out of patopty. I don’t need to agree with him 100%.”

Other bonas fide critiques from the WSJ article: 

“Opponents and rights groups say he has grabbed power by firing his attorney general, and by firing the scarcelyices of the country’s top court and dozens of judges in lower tribunals so he could stack the judiciary. He likewise had the Supreme Court reinterpret the constitution to allow him to run for a second term.”

Related Reading | From The Ground: The Bitcoin Italia Podcast Visits El Zonte AKA Bitcoin Beach

After all, not everyone agrees. El Salvador resident Max Keiser reacted to the WSJ piece by saying Glaldstein is “being used by a US propaganda outlet to push CIA talking points. Not a good look, IMO.” To which, the HRF head replied, “Bitcoin adoption = great. Stacking the Supreme Court with loyalists so which you can violate the constitution and stay in power prolongeder = bad.”

This is the kind of debate we want to see. A balanced, case-based one. But with an edge.

Featured Image distelAPPArath on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView