A currency being legal tender presumably has little bearing on whether the U.S. would consider it a currency. Some countries don‘t even have the concept of legal tender, while others recognize currencies they don’t issue themselves.
Being issued by a sovereign state would probably be a better test.
> Being issued by a sovereign state would probably be a better test.
Aha, so they just need another layer of indirection.
Acting on the imprimatur of the country's central bank, programmatically issue a sovereign CBDC upon the deposit of BTC. Keep cryptographic proof of 100% BTC reserves at all times to provide ultimate credibility for your (potentially parallel) currency (so you can keep using dollars or pesos or whatever in your real economy). Allow intra-CBDC transfers for 0.1% fee and programmatic redemptions for BTC for 0.2%. Profit.
The economic definition of "legal tender" is sometimes obscured in casual conversation.
It isn't "issued by a sovereign state" - that's "fiat" but rather "used for paying taxes." And sometimes, like in the US, debts ("all debts foreign and domestic").
Certainly it has to vary among countries of which I am ignorant, but generally in the Anglosphere it is debts, not payments, that trigger the definition of "legal tender."
Feels like the answer to these questions is just gonna be “maybe such a case in the future will make it to the courts, and the courts will have to come up with an interpretation here.” We can make guesses about what the courts will decide but how confident are we in our guesses?
its already the case with el salvador and bitcoin. bitcoin wasn't really under question though for being a security so would need someone to make a smaller token legal tender
