Bitcoin became legal tender before the operating questions were settled
El Salvador's Bitcoin Law combined mandatory acceptance with dollar accounting and a public conversion guarantee. That combination made liquidity, custody and consumer protection central to the payment model.
A merchant could accept bitcoin and still need dollars to keep accounts and pay bills. El Salvador's experiment with bitcoin as legal tender placed that familiar payment problem inside an unusual public framework. When the law took effect on 7 September 2021, it required economic agents to accept bitcoin, with an exception for those lacking the necessary technology. It retained the dollar as the accounting reference and promised optional automatic conversion.
Those provisions created several distinct questions. Could a customer complete a payment? Could a merchant reliably receive spendable dollars? Who held the assets and absorbed a loss between the two? For payment startups, legal recognition opened a new operating setting, but it did not answer the questions that determined whether the service was dependable or economical.
The law retained a dollar reference
The Bitcoin Law was published in the official gazette on 9 June 2021. Article 2 left the exchange rate between bitcoin and the dollar to the market; Article 6 retained the dollar for accounting purposes. Prices could be expressed in bitcoin and taxes could be paid in it, but the legislation did not promise a fixed exchange rate or remove the need to measure obligations in dollars.
A payment company therefore had to distinguish the asset used to initiate a transaction from the currency the recipient wanted to hold. Quoting, execution and reconciliation could each involve a different moment and exchange rate. Any claim of a cheaper payment needed to account for that conversion path, including spreads, liquidity costs and exceptions when a transfer did not complete as expected.
Acceptance was a rule; access was a constraint
Article 7 required an economic agent to accept bitcoin when offered by a buyer. Article 12 excluded those who evidently lacked access to the technology required to transact, and the law instructed the state to promote training and access. That qualification mattered: a national legal status was not evidence that every shop possessed a working device, connection or usable operating process.
For a startup serving merchants, the difficult work could begin after installation. Staff needed to recognise a completed payment, resolve a mismatch and reconcile receipts without becoming cryptocurrency specialists. The cost of that support belonged in the business model. Serving small transactions could become expensive if routine exceptions required repeated manual assistance from the provider.
Conversion shifted exposure through the system
Article 8 provided for state alternatives enabling bitcoin transactions and automatic, instantaneous conversion into dollars if the user wished. Article 14 required a trust at the development bank BANDESAL to guarantee that conversion for those alternatives. The mechanism gave a recipient a way to choose dollar exposure, but it did not make bitcoin's market volatility disappear.
Quote
Identify the invoice currency and the exchange rate applied to the payment.
Receive
Confirm the transfer and establish which party holds the received assets.
Convert
Where the recipient chooses the state-provided option, obtain the promised automatic dollar conversion.
Reconcile
Match the dollar receipt, fees and transaction record to the merchant's accounts.
An operating path for a recipient choosing dollars. Articles 6, 8 and 14 establish the accounting reference and conversion option; service design determines how each step is delivered.
An operator supporting that promise still needed liquidity, custody arrangements and a process for handling price movement between steps. The relevant question was where those responsibilities sat: with a private provider, a public facility or the user. A startup's apparently attractive payment margin could depend on a subsidised conversion service whose costs were borne elsewhere. That dependency needed to be visible when assessing durable unit economics.
Wallet safeguards remained essential
Following implementation, IMF mission staff described Chivo as a wallet backed by the government and operating in both dollars and bitcoin. Their statement recognised that crypto technologies and digital payment systems could improve payment efficiency and financial inclusion. It also recommended segregated, ringfenced reserve assets to safeguard customer funds, with stronger oversight of consumer protection, measures against money laundering and risk management.
That distinction mattered for evaluating the technology. Easier digital access could benefit customers without establishing that holding a volatile asset was appropriate for their daily spending. For a wallet provider, clear balances, reliable access to funds and a workable response to disputes were part of the product. The public conversion arrangement did not substitute for those protections or prove the quality of custody.
Public incentives changed the demand signal
The staff statement recorded the government support explicitly: qualifying citizens who downloaded Chivo received US$30, and the conversion trust was funded with US$150 million from the budget. These figures described rollout support, rather than the ongoing cost of processing a payment. They also made registrations difficult to interpret as evidence of lasting demand. A provider needed to follow repeated use after the initial incentive, alongside the cost of serving each customer.
For a remittance service, a useful commercial comparison would follow the same transfer amount along the same corridor and measure the accessible dollars received, the elapsed time and the work required when something went wrong. A low network fee could be meaningful, but it was only one component. The household receiving money needed a dependable way to spend or withdraw it; savings had to survive that last step.
The IMF moved from concerns to recommendations
At its 10 June briefing, IMF spokesman Gerry Rice said the adoption raised macroeconomic, financial and legal issues requiring careful analysis. Consultations were ongoing. After the mission, staff made a more specific recommendation: bitcoin should not be legal tender, and the law's scope should be narrowed because of volatility and risks to consumers, financial integrity, stability and public finances.
Released on 22 November, these preliminary staff findings did not necessarily represent the IMF Executive Board's views. They followed both legislation and implementation, allowing a more developed assessment than the initial response. For payment investors, the sequence exposed a gap between legal recognition and the work of running a service. A mandate can create distribution; reliable settlement and customer protection still have to be demonstrated in operation.
Investment implications
- Mandatory acceptance, actual use and customer benefit were separate claims requiring separate evidence.
- Optional dollar conversion reduced one user's exposure by creating liquidity needs and responsibility for managing risk elsewhere.
- The IMF's initial concerns developed into more specific staff recommendations after implementation.
Sources
- Ley Bitcoin, Decreto No. 57, Diario Oficial No. 110, Tomo 431, pages 13–15 (opens in a new tab)
Diario Oficial, El Salvador
- Transcript of IMF Press Briefing — June 10, 2021 (opens in a new tab)
International Monetary Fund
- El Salvador: Staff Concluding Statement of the 2021 Article IV Mission (opens in a new tab)
International Monetary Fund
Published
