In El Salvador, the Bitcoin bet changed course before it could deliver the promised financial revolution. In 2025, a legal reform made it voluntary for businesses to accept Bitcoin and limited the public sector’s involvement.
In 2026, the government transferred majority ownership and operational control of Chivo Wallet, the digital wallet created to promote Bitcoin use, to a private operator. Bitcoin remains available in the country, but it no longer plays the role it had in the original plan.
That shift raises a central question: What did the policy accomplish for the public? Nayib Bukele’s government promoted Bitcoin as a way to facilitate payments, expand access to financial services, reduce remittance costs, and attract investment.
Yet the latest available survey on everyday use shows that most respondents did not use it to make payments in 2024. And although remittances sent through cryptocurrency wallets increased in the first months of 2026, they accounted for less than 1% of the total received by the country.
There is no 2026 survey measuring whether families’ views changed this year. The most recent data directly measuring Bitcoin use came from Iudop, published in January 2025 and covering the previous year. Those findings, alongside Central Reserve Bank remittance figures and International Monetary Fund (IMF) reports on recent financial and legal changes, help show which parts of the promise were fulfilled and which remained unfulfilled.
Bitcoin in El Salvador changed the rules of money, but it was not a central campaign promise
It is important to highlight that bitcoin was not a central promise in Nayib Bukele’s 2019 presidential campaign. Nevertheless, the proposal emerged in June 2021, when the president announced that he would introduce legislation to make Bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador.
He made the announcement in a prerecorded address to the Bitcoin 2021 conference in Miami, saying the country was beginning to design “a country for the future.” The Legislative Assembly, then dominated by the ruling Nuevas Ideas party, approved the law days later. It took effect on Sept. 7 of that year.
The initiative rested on two main arguments; the first was financial inclusion. The government said a digital wallet could give people without bank accounts a way to make payments and transfers, provided they had a phone and internet access.
The second was remittances: The money members of the Salvadoran diaspora send to their families. The administration argued that if Bitcoin transfers cost less than those made through traditional companies, households could receive more of that money.
The promise mattered in a country where many people work in the informal economy, and remittances play a major role in household income. The government presented Chivo Wallet as a free app for sending, receiving, and using money in dollars or Bitcoin. To encourage people to try it, the government offered US$30 (about 95,833 COP) to anyone who downloaded the app and completed registration.
But a digital tool does not, by itself, guarantee financial inclusion. People need a suitable phone, internet access, electricity (many of which some may not have access to), and trust in the service.
They also need to know how to convert a digital balance into cash, resolve errors, and protect their accounts. For people who receive remittances and need to withdraw cash to cover everyday expenses, the app’s convenience depends on having accessible places to collect or spend that money.
There was also a gap between presenting Bitcoin as an option for individuals and requiring businesses to accept it. The original law required businesses to accept Bitcoin if they had the technology to do so. The president insisted that people would not be forced to use it, but the legal mandate created uncertainty among businesses and consumers.
The IMF later said the 2025 reform removed the essential features of Bitcoin’s legal-tender status and made acceptance by private businesses voluntary.
The plan extended beyond a digital wallet and payments. In November 2021, Bukele announced Bitcoin City, a city that would be built near the Conchagua volcano. Under the proposal, the volcano’s geothermal energy would power Bitcoin mining operations, while part of the investment would come from “volcano bonds,” debt securities linked to the cryptocurrency. The vision was of a new urban and financial hub designed to attract international capital and establish the country as a technology center.
That future did not materialize as announced. The bonds were never issued, and Bitcoin City was not built as proposed. A digital-asset law passed in 2023 created a framework to regulate certain offerings and services, but it did not, by itself, deliver the city or the financing that had been promised.
The bet did put El Salvador at the center of a global debate about cryptocurrencies. But that visibility is different from proving that families saved money or increased their incomes because of the project.
Polls and remittances show a gap between owning Bitcoin and using it
The clearest way to measure whether Bitcoin became part of everyday life is to ask people if they used it to buy or pay for something. In January 2025, the University Institute of Public Opinion (Iudop) at the Jose Simeon Cañas Central American University published a survey on Bitcoin use during the previous year.
Some 91.8% of respondents said they had not used Bitcoin to buy or pay for anything in 2024. Of those, 76.2% said they had never used it. Only 8.1% reported using it that year, the lowest share since the survey began tracking use in 2021.
Those figures do not show how many people may have owned Bitcoin. Holding some as an investment in the hope that its price will rise is different from using it to pay for groceries, a bill, or a service. Someone may view Bitcoin as an investment without using it as money in everyday life. They may also try a transaction and later decide the system is not practical for them.
That distinction matters because the government’s promises involved concrete changes to the economy: Easier transactions, broader access to financial services, and more efficient remittances. For those benefits to reach a large number of families, Bitcoin would have to become widely used and trusted. Iudop’s findings indicate that, at least as a payment method, it did not become routine for most respondents.
The survey also does not show that no one benefited. Some people may have used the wallet to receive or send money, taken advantage of a payment option, or made money by investing. The outcome of an investment depends on how much a person bought, when they bought it, and whether they sold. The gains of people who held the asset are not the same as a shared improvement in living standards across the population.
Bukele himself acknowledged a gap between the goal and the results. In an interview with TIME published in August 2024, he said Bitcoin “hasn’t had the adoption we expected.” He also defended its potential benefits for people who used or invested in it and said the bet had brought visibility to El Salvador. Those comments reflect the president’s assessment and should be considered alongside usage data and surveys of public perceptions.
Remittance figures offer another measure. According to Central Reserve Bank data reported in May 2026, El Salvador received US$23.1 million (about 73.8 billion COP) through cryptocurrency wallets between January and April that year.
That was a 44.3% increase compared with the same period in 2025, when the total was US$16 million (about 51.1 billion COP). The increase is worth watching, but it represented only about 0.7% of the US$3.2867 billion (approximately 10.5 trillion COP) in remittances the country received during those four months.
The 0.7% figure puts the increase in perspective as the flow grew, but remittances sent through cryptocurrency wallets remained a small share of the total. The reported figure also refers to cryptocurrency wallets; it does not establish that every dollar in that flow was sent specifically in Bitcoin. The data show a growing digital channel, not that it replaced the methods families already used.
The IMF has questioned whether the policy delivered the expected gains in financial inclusion and transfers. In its 2025 analysis, the Fund said Bitcoin’s adoption as legal tender had not led to visible improvements in financial inclusion or digital remittances. It added that despite public subsidies to facilitate transactions, acceptance, and use by individuals and businesses remained limited.
The question, then, is not whether anyone gained an advantage, but whether the policy broadly benefited families. Usage surveys and transfer figures do not show widespread adoption. What the available data show is that the promise of widespread change is not reflected in how most respondents said they used Bitcoin.
The IMF deal narrowed the project and left questions about public assets
The legal changes were part of a broader financial agreement. In December 2024, the government reached a deal with the IMF for access to a US$1.4 billion (about 4.47 trillion COP) financing program. Measures to reduce Bitcoin-related risks included making its acceptance voluntary for businesses and limiting the public sector’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities. The Legislative Assembly amended the law in January 2025.
In practice, Bitcoin no longer had the same legal backing it had received in 2021. Businesses were no longer required to accept it, and the government faced limits on its involvement. The cryptocurrency remained available to anyone who wanted to use it, but it no longer occupied the central place the government had assigned it in economic policy.
In September 2026, the IMF reported that majority ownership and operational control of Chivo Wallet had passed to a private operator. The government retained a minority stake and responsibility for safeguarding customer assets. The Fund also said the government had provided documentation showing that Bitcoin accumulation after the program’s first review had come from private donations, with no public resources used. It said no further accumulation was expected beyond documented donations.
The transfer of Chivo does not mean that the government transferred its Bitcoin reserve; Bukele made that distinction publicly: One question is who operates the wallet, another is who holds or manages the government’s digital assets.
The National Bitcoin Office publishes a record of holdings that stands at around 7,800 bitcoins. Their dollar value fluctuates with the market, so that amount should not be mistaken for a fixed sum or money readily available to fund public spending.
The IMF’s explanation about donations addresses some questions about more recent purchases, but discussion about transparency and accountability remains. The Fund has called for clearer disclosure of public-sector digital assets and stricter rules for supervising companies operating in the market.
In its October 2026 assessment, it said El Salvador still needed to improve transparency around public holdings and reduce the government’s involvement in Bitcoin-related activities.
The economic picture also requires separating the effects of Bitcoin policy from other changes in the country. The IMF projects that El Salvador’s economy will grow by 4.5% in 2026, linking that outlook to private investment, consumption, remittances, tourism and capital inflows. It also points to improved security and investor confidence.
Despite Bitcoin’s limited tangible impact on Salvadoran families, there’s no doubt Bukele’s bet has left a legacy: A digital wallet, a government Bitcoin reserve, a digital-asset law, and international attention that El Salvador might not have received without the 2021 decision.
But the project’s most ambitious goals were not achieved: Everyday use did not become widespread, Bitcoin City was not built, and the volcano bonds were never issued. Legal changes and the IMF agreement have also reduced the government’s direct involvement.
For families in El Salvador, the clearest conclusion is not that Bitcoin was useless to everyone or that no one profited; it is that, according to the available surveys, it did not become a routine way to pay for most people.
And although remittances through digital wallets grew in 2026, they still made up a small share of total remittances. Bukele’s promised financial future captured global attention, but it did not replace the everyday practices that support most Salvadoran households.