“`html
Eight years back, I authored a book regarding the art of technology pitching. The fundamental lesson was straightforward: To persuade doubters, you need to demonstrate that your solution’s merit isn’t merely superior — it’s distinctively superior. Years later, as I started promoting Bitcoin’s significance in humanitarian emergencies, this lesson resurfaced with urgency. Doubtful acquaintances inquired, “Can’t stablecoins achieve the same?” and “What’s so special about Bitcoin?”
The response is found not in abstract concepts, but in the protest movements of Abuja, the power outages of Caracas, and the clandestine schools that girls attend in Kabul — locales where 1.7 billion unbanked individuals, 250 million grappling with severe inflation or hyperinflation, and 2.3 billion living under authoritarian regimes strive to endure. These narratives rarely penetrate Western media algorithms, which tend to favor headlines about ETFs over critical financial hardships.
A cursory examination of these regions reveals that Bitcoin is not only essential but distinctly essential in ways that stablecoins and other altcoins cannot replicate. Let’s explore three countries that are embracing Bitcoin over stablecoins and the rationale behind this choice.
Nigeria: Where Independence Surpasses Stability
Context: 223 million inhabitants, 95 million surviving on less than $1.90 daily. 23.71% inflation (April 2025), 18.3-20 million children not enrolled in school. Just 30% have access to safe drinking water.
In 2024, Nigeria encountered profound economic and political turmoil, with the native currency naira plummeting to a record 1,643 per dollar by August — down from 460 in early 2023. This not only diminished savings and purchasing capacity but also shattered trust in the administration, leading to widespread protests regarding surging inflation and fuel prices. These protests were fueled by widespread frustration over governmental economic mismanagement and policies that failed to reverse the economic decline.
Occasionally a stable currency, the naira’s free fall left households and businesses grappling to afford imports in a dollar-reliant economy. Public discontent intensified, bringing about political unrest. This tumultuous atmosphere of currency depreciation, limited financial access, and social upheaval set the stage for Nigerians to explore alternative financial systems such as cryptocurrencies, seeking strategies to preserve their wealth amidst a faltering economic system.
However, the government wasn’t prepared to facilitate this ease for its citizens. The Nigerian government imposed restrictions on stablecoins. “Illicit flows,” also known as money laundering, was frequently cited as the government’s official justification for anti-stablecoin measures. More likely, the Nigerian administration acted because it perceived stablecoins as undermining its monetary regulations by permitting unregulated capital movements and currency substitution, diminishing its central bank’s authority over the money supply and exchange rates.
Undoubtedly, bitcoin may also be viewed as subverting monetary policy in some comparable manners, but the difference lies in the fact that Nigeria’s government could not effectively limit bitcoin usage due to its decentralized nature.
The specific actions taken by Nigeria’s government manifested in three forms:
- Banking Limitations and U.S. dollar supply shortages effectively restricted fiat on-ramps/off-ramps for stablecoins like USDT, which necessitated KYC-compliant exchanges. P2P bitcoin trading surged following these restrictions, as users circumvented banking controls utilizing private wallets and DEXs.
- Regulatory Actions: Nigeria’s government initiated specific legal measures to sue unlicensed USDT traders. Subsequently, Nigerian authorities escalated their actions, accusing the crypto-trading platform Binance of “exploitation, devaluation of the naira and money laundering.”
- Premiums and Fluctuations: Regulatory pressures and currency exchange shortages likely inflated premiums, making stablecoins less practical compared to bitcoin, which functions without centralized dependencies.
All three approaches — banking restrictions, regulatory actions, and premiums/volatility — influenced bitcoin far less than they did stablecoins. Stablecoins’ dependence on centralized issuers, banking infrastructure, and KYC-compliant exchanges rendered them susceptible to governmental interventions, as demonstrated when USDT trading was disrupted. In contrast, Bitcoin’s decentralized and permissionless design allowed Nigerians to navigate around restrictions using P2P platforms and private wallets, bolstering its adoption.
Afghanistan: How Bitcoin Became a Financial Lifeline Post-Taliban Takeover
Context: Under Taliban governance, most women lack bank access, and Afghanistan’s currency depreciated 50% between 2021 and 2022. Eighty-five percent subsist on less than $1 daily, while 80% of school-aged Afghan girls and young women remain outside the education system.
When the Taliban took control in August 2021, Afghanistan’s banking infrastructure crumbled under sanctions, leaving individuals — particularly women — with limited alternatives. Traditional remittance systems like Hawala imposed exorbitant fees (5-20%), while frozen central bank reserves rendered dollar procurement almost impossible. In this void, bitcoin emerged as a vital resource for survival. In 2021, Bitcoin Magazine previously reported how women were protecting Bitcoin seed phrases as a final financial safeguard. After the Taliban prohibited crypto in 2022, peer-to-peer bitcoin trading continued underground.
Why Bitcoin Excelled Over Stablecoins in Crisis
Stablecoins, dependent on centralized issuers and dollar-pegged banking systems,
“““html
faltered under Afghanistan’s distinctive circumstances. U.S. sanctions froze $7 billion in central banking resources, which obstructed the dollar liquidity essential for stablecoins such as USDT. Although Forbes India highlighted isolated instances of stablecoin employment for salaries, the majority of Afghans discovered them to be impractical. Concurrently, sanctions hindered fiat conversions and the Taliban’s November 2021 foreign currency prohibition further limited access. In contrast, Bitcoin flourished due to its decentralized framework: no intermediaries to freeze transactions, no KYC to reveal users and a worldwide network that resisted shutdowns. Where stablecoins were impeded by their connections to conventional finance, Bitcoin facilitated direct, pseudonymous transfers.
Venezuela: Scarcity Trumps “Stability”
Context: The Venezuelan bolívar has plummeted 99.99% in value since 2018; 76% of Venezuelans subsist on $1.90/day. Over 7.7 million Venezuelans have escaped the nation since 2014 due to economic devastation and political turmoil. More than 10% of children under five in Venezuela experience stunting as a result of chronic malnutrition.
Carlos, a mechanic in Caracas, gauges his existence in bolívars — or rather, their scarcity. Since 2018, Venezuela’s currency has lost 99.99% of its worth, Carlos articulates, serving as an exemplar among many Venezuelans who turned to bitcoin, not stablecoins, to safeguard their wealth as the bolívar continued to depreciate. The government enacted severe capital controls so that even if you somehow obtain USD, you are unable to transfer those funds to your banking account.
Bitcoin serves as a financial lifeline for individuals like Carlos, unlike stablecoins which are pegged to a USD that itself has diminished 18% in purchasing power since 2020.
Indeed: Individuals like Carlos, versed in the harsh realities of currency hyper-devaluation, understood sooner than many in the West that stablecoins are not genuinely stable.
Stablecoins, by their very name, appear to provide a safe haven, as they are linked to the USD, but this is similar to mooring a ship to a midsized rock on the ocean floor. This is significantly better than having no anchor at all, as you can evade the immediate turbulent seas of your local currency’s hyperinflation. Nevertheless, over time, you gradually drift into the vast ocean of dollar devaluation. Since the USD itself loses purchasing power, this slowly yet inevitably pulls stablecoin holders toward the same inflationary challenges they aimed to avoid.
Venezuela’s lesson mirrors that of Nigeria: in economies ravaged by hyperinflation, slow erosion of wealth is far more perilous than volatility.
How Governments Target Stablecoin Liquidity in Authoritarian Regimes
The scenarios we’ve observed in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Venezuela are not anomalies. Globally, authoritarian regimes do not merely disfavor stablecoins — they systematically dismantle access to them. Their strategies can be categorized into six groups. Let’s explore these, utilizing examples from authoritarian governments worldwide.
- Proposed Stablecoin Bans (e.g., Brazil): Criminalizing stablecoin trading or payments.
- Banking Blockades (e.g., China): Severing fiat pathways to restrict stablecoin and crypto liquidity. While the ban theoretically included Bitcoin as well, the Bitcoin prohibition was not entirely enforced due to Bitcoin’s decentralized structure. Reuters, for instance, remarked, “repeated (Bitcoin) prohibitions underscore the difficulty of closing loopholes and pinpointing bitcoin-related transactions.”
- KYC Enforcement (e.g., Hong Kong): Mandating rigorous identity checks for stablecoin transactions, which deters use in regimes with stringent surveillance.
- State-sponsored hacks (e.g., North Korea): Depleting stablecoin reserves and undermining market confidence.
- Licensing Strangleholds (e.g., Russia’s proposed regulations): Imposing rigid licensing requirements for stablecoin issuers or platforms, in order to restrict their operation.
- Surveillance and Arrests (e.g., China’s OTC crackdowns): Observing and penalizing anyone engaged in stablecoin trading.
The Lifeline: Why None of These Six Strategies Work On Bitcoin
In contrast to stablecoins — which rely on centralized issuers and platforms susceptible to regulation, hacking, or shutdown — Bitcoin functions beyond any government’s control. Its decentralized network of miners and nodes does not have a single point of failure, no CEO to influence, and no intermediary to obstruct. While authorities can freeze stablecoin transactions or impose stringent licensing regulations, Bitcoin transactions occur peer-to-peer, circumventing traditional choke points. Wallets remain confidential, miners are globally dispersed, and the network inherently resists censorship.
Governments may easily restrict stablecoins, but Bitcoin’s framework guarantees it remains beyond their reach.
For instance, Russia has investigated cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, as a means to circumvent Western sanctions — especially following the 2022 Ukraine invasion. State-sponsored projects, such as their proposed centralized exchange, were established to facilitate cross-border payments in crypto to bypass SWIFT restrictions and frozen foreign reserves.
Simultaneously, Russia’s central bank has instituted limitations on foreign stablecoins like USDT to tighten control over domestic financial movements. On May 18, CoinTurk claimed that Russia is now endeavoring to restrict USDT’s…
“““html
utilized in local dealings, promoting the acceptance of a state-regulated stablecoin. This corresponds with initiatives aimed at curbing capital flight, guaranteeing adherence to AML regulations, and endorsing “friendly” digital currencies that correspond with national security objectives.
Why both? Russia’s dual strategy illustrates a compelling strategic depth: They utilized bitcoin for bypassing international sanctions while constraining foreign stablecoins domestically to preserve economic dominance and diminish dependence on USD-anchored assets (as these are prone to external influence, such as Tether’s capability to freeze wallets).
In the context of authoritarian regimes seeking stringent capital controls, bitcoin is resilient; stablecoins are not.
The Altcoin Illusion
Alright, so stablecoins fail to present a feasible alternative to bitcoin. But what about other altcoins?
It appears these do not function effectively either since centralized altcoins like XRP, Solana, and Ethereum replicate the critical flaw of stablecoins: reliance. Developers can reverse transactions (as Ethereum did in 2016), validators can freeze wallets, and the frequently unlimited supply of altcoins resembles fiat currency depreciation.
The failure is systemic. For instance, when Nigeria prohibited Binance in 2024, Solana-based USDC users found themselves isolated, whereas bitcoin traders merely shifted to decentralized exchanges like HodlHodl.
The common thread is that stablecoins do not substitute bitcoin because:
- Inflation hedges necessitate scarcity and linkage to an asset that isn’t eroding purchasing power itself. Stablecoins lack these two attributes.
- USD scarcity in nations like Nigeria makes stablecoins unreliable (premiums surged to over 60% during FX crunches).
- Political risk: The state can’t forbid bitcoin, but it can (and does) focus on stablecoin liquidity.
Individuals in autocratic countries use bitcoin not despite its fluctuations, but because its sovereignty-preserving characteristics surpass short-term price variations. Stablecoins serve transactional purposes; bitcoin is a tool for endurance.
The Shortsightedness of Privilege
The belief that stablecoins can mirror bitcoin’s utility frequently arises from a shortsightedness shaped by stable currencies, functioning democracies, and robust banking frameworks — privileges foreign to 2.3 billion individuals living under authoritarian regimes and the 250 million contending with high inflation or hyperinflation. Western commentators, insulated by privilege, proclaim stablecoins as “adequate,” oblivious to the fact that in Abuja, a frozen USDT account can wipe out a family’s savings overnight, or that in Kabul, the reliance of stablecoins on KYC checks excludes 80% of women from the financial framework. Media algorithms establish an effective shadow ban by simply ignoring regions deemed “not of interest” to the West, deepening this disconnect.
To those influencing the narrative: Look beyond your banking application. Consider why Nigerian P2P bitcoin volume vastly surpasses that of France, or why Afghan refugees memorize seed phrases instead of relying on Tether. The firsthand accounts are these. So is the data indicating that these narratives are not outliers but rather evidence of Bitcoin uniquely satisfying a critical demand for a substantial user base in ways stablecoins cannot. Stablecoins and altcoins innovate within systems that have already disappointed the Global South. Bitcoin exists outside of them. Improved conclusions arise from curiosity, not presuppositions. Bitcoin’s worth isn’t in supplanted stablecoins — it’s in accomplishing what they fundamentally cannot achieve.
Let’s refrain from imposing our realities onto theirs and begin to listen.
Source link
“`
