“`html
\n<\/p>\n
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\u2019s merit isn\u2019t merely superior \u2014 it\u2019s distinctively<\/em> superior. Years later, as I started promoting Bitcoin\u2019s significance in humanitarian emergencies, this lesson resurfaced with urgency. Doubtful acquaintances inquired, \u201cCan\u2019t stablecoins achieve the same?\u201d and \u201cWhat\u2019s so special about Bitcoin?\u201d<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s explore three countries that are embracing Bitcoin over stablecoins and the rationale behind this choice.<\/p>\n Context: <\/strong>223 million inhabitants, 95 million surviving on less than $1.90 daily<\/a>. 23.71%<\/a> inflation (April 2025), 18.3-20 million children not enrolled in school<\/a>. Just 30% have access to safe drinking water<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 2024, Nigeria encountered profound economic and political turmoil, with the native currency naira plummeting<\/a> to a record 1,643 per dollar by August \u2014 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<\/a>. These protests were fueled by widespread frustration<\/a> over governmental economic mismanagement and policies that failed to reverse the economic decline.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, seeking strategies to preserve their wealth amidst a faltering economic system.<\/p>\n However, the government wasn\u2019t prepared to facilitate this ease for its citizens. The Nigerian government imposed restrictions on stablecoins. \u201cIllicit flows,\u201d also known as money laundering, was frequently cited as the government\u2019s official justification<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n Undoubtedly, bitcoin may also be viewed as subverting monetary policy in some comparable manners, but the difference lies in the fact that Nigeria\u2019s government could not effectively limit bitcoin usage due to its decentralized nature.<\/p>\n The specific actions taken by Nigeria\u2019s government manifested in three forms:<\/p>\n All three approaches \u2014 banking restrictions, regulatory actions, and premiums\/volatility \u2014 influenced bitcoin far less<\/strong> than they did stablecoins. Stablecoins\u2019 dependence on centralized issuers, banking infrastructure, and KYC-compliant exchanges rendered them susceptible to governmental interventions, as demonstrated when USDT trading was disrupted<\/a>. In contrast, Bitcoin\u2019s decentralized and permissionless design allowed Nigerians to navigate around restrictions using P2P platforms and private wallets, bolstering its adoption.<\/p>\n Context:<\/strong> Under Taliban governance, most women lack bank access, and Afghanistan\u2019s currency depreciated 50% between 2021 and 2022. Eighty-five percent subsist on less than $1 daily<\/a>, while 80% of school-aged Afghan girls<\/a> and young women remain outside the education system.<\/p>\n When the Taliban took control in August 2021, Afghanistan\u2019s banking infrastructure crumbled under sanctions, leaving individuals \u2014 particularly women \u2014 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<\/a> 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n Why Bitcoin Excelled Over Stablecoins in Crisis<\/strong> Context<\/strong>: The Venezuelan bol\u00edvar has plummeted 99.99% in value since 2018; 76% of Venezuelans subsist on $1.90\/day. Over 7.7 million Venezuelans<\/a> have escaped the nation since 2014 due to economic devastation and political turmoil. More than 10% of children under five in Venezuela experience stunting<\/a> as a result of chronic malnutrition.<\/p>\n Carlos, a mechanic in Caracas, gauges his existence in bol\u00edvars \u2014 or rather, their scarcity. Since 2018, Venezuela\u2019s currency has lost 99.99% of its worth, Carlos articulates<\/a>, serving as an exemplar among many Venezuelans who turned to bitcoin, not stablecoins, to safeguard their wealth as the bol\u00edvar 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Venezuela\u2019s lesson mirrors that of Nigeria: in economies ravaged by hyperinflation, slow erosion of wealth<\/em> is far more perilous than volatility.<\/p>\n The scenarios we\u2019ve observed in Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Venezuela are not anomalies. Globally, authoritarian regimes do not merely disfavor stablecoins \u2014 they systematically dismantle access to them. Their strategies can be categorized into six groups. Let\u2019s explore these, utilizing examples from authoritarian governments worldwide.<\/p>\n In contrast to stablecoins \u2014 which rely on centralized issuers and platforms susceptible to regulation, hacking, or shutdown \u2014 Bitcoin functions beyond any government\u2019s control<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n Governments may easily restrict stablecoins, but Bitcoin\u2019s framework guarantees it remains beyond their reach.<\/p>\n For instance, Russia has investigated cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, as a means to circumvent Western sanctions \u2014 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.<\/p>\n Simultaneously, Russia\u2019s central bank has instituted limitations on foreign stablecoins<\/a> like USDT to tighten control over domestic financial movements. On May 18, CoinTurk<\/a> claimed that Russia is now endeavoring to restrict USDT\u2019s… 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 \u201cfriendly\u201d digital currencies that correspond with national security objectives.<\/p>\n Why both? Russia\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n In the context of authoritarian regimes seeking stringent capital controls, bitcoin is resilient; stablecoins are not.<\/p>\n Alright, so stablecoins fail to present a feasible alternative to bitcoin. But what about other altcoins?<\/p>\n It appears these do not function effectively either since centralized altcoins like XRP, Solana, and Ethereum replicate the critical flaw of stablecoins: reliance<\/em>. Developers can reverse transactions (as Ethereum did in 2016), validators can freeze wallets, and the frequently unlimited supply of altcoins resembles fiat currency depreciation.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The belief that stablecoins can mirror bitcoin\u2019s utility frequently arises from a shortsightedness shaped by stable currencies, functioning democracies, and robust banking frameworks \u2014 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 \u201cadequate,\u201d oblivious to the fact that in Abuja, a frozen USDT account can wipe out a family\u2019s 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 \u201cnot of interest\u201d to the West, deepening this disconnect.<\/p>\nNigeria: Where Independence Surpasses Stability<\/h2>\n
\n
Afghanistan: How Bitcoin Became a Financial Lifeline Post-Taliban Takeover<\/h2>\n
Stablecoins, dependent on centralized issuers and dollar-pegged banking systems,
\n“““html
\n faltered under Afghanistan\u2019s distinctive circumstances. U.S. sanctions froze $7 billion<\/a> 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<\/a>, the majority of Afghans discovered them to be impractical. Concurrently, sanctions hindered fiat conversions and the Taliban\u2019s November 2021 foreign currency prohibition further limited access<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\nVenezuela: Scarcity Trumps \u201cStability\u201d<\/h2>\n
How Governments Target Stablecoin Liquidity in Authoritarian Regimes<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
The Lifeline: Why None of These Six Strategies Work On Bitcoin<\/h2>\n
\n“““html<\/p>\nThe Altcoin Illusion<\/h2>\n
The common thread is that stablecoins do not substitute bitcoin because:<\/h3>\n
\n
The Shortsightedness of Privilege<\/h2>\n