š„ EL SALVADOR RECEIVED $41 MILLION IN REMITTANCES WITH CRYPTO, BUT TRADITIONAL CHANNELS STILL DOMINATE
El Salvador recorded **$41.11 million** in remittances received via crypto wallets between January and July 2026, a **35.7%** increase compared to the same period in 2025. The figure, published by the Central Reserve Bank (BCR), confirms a significant rebound after the digital channel collapsed by 32.5% in 2025.
However, the full story is more nuanced. Those $41 million represent only **0.69%** of the total remittances the country received in the same period: **$5,924.85 million**. Traditional banks and remittance companies still concentrate more than **99%** of transactions.
Five years after El Salvador became the first country in the world to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, the promise of crypto remittances is still, for now, a marginal reality.
š Reply with šøš» if you think the Salvadoran experiment is a success case, or with š if you want to learn the data and lessons.
š THE DATA THAT TELLS THE STORY
**January - July 2026:**
- Remittances via crypto: **$41.11 million**
- Total remittances: **$5,924.85 million**
- Crypto share: **0.69%**
- Year-over-year growth: **35.7%**
**To put it in perspective:**
- In the same period of 2025, crypto remittances totaled **$30.29 million** (0.53% of the total).
- In 2024, the annual cumulative total was **$85.5 million**.
- In 2025, the annual cumulative total fell to **$57.67 million**, a 32.5% contraction.
The rebound in 2026 suggests stabilization of the digital channel after the regulatory adjustment that followed the IMF agreement. The average amount sent through these wallets also increased, from **$273.9 to $313**, indicating higher-value transactions.
š WHY DID IT FALL IN 2025 AND WHY DOES IT REBOUND IN 2026?
The drop in 2025 wasnāt an accident. It coincided with two key events:
**1. The reform to the Bitcoin Law**
In 2025, after reaching a credit agreement of **$1.4 billion** with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Legislative Assembly removed Bitcoinās legal-tender status and limited the stateās role in its circulation. The use of Bitcoin became voluntary.
**2. The End of Chivo Wallet**
The state wallet Chivo Wallet, which had been the main vehicle for receiving crypto remittances, began to reduce its operations as part of the commitments with the IMF. In September 2026, the government confirmed the sale of most of its stake in Chivo to a private operator, whose name has not been disclosed.
The rebound in 2026 suggests that, after the adjustment, the digital channel found a new balance. Users who truly value the usefulness of cryptocurrencies for remittances keep using them, but thereās no longer the state push that existed before.
š THE BROKEN PROMISE OF REMITTANCES
When El Salvador adopted Bitcoin in 2021, one of the strongest arguments was savings on remittance fees. Early reports estimated that switching to crypto could save Salvadorans **$400 million per year** in transaction and intermediary fees.
Five years later, that promise hasnāt materialized. The reasons are multiple:
**Bitcoin volatility:** Even though stablecoins like USDT and USDC offer stability, the Salvadoran ecosystem was strongly associated with Bitcoin, whose volatile price led many users to prefer the security of cash or a bank account.
**Lack of financial education:** A survey by the University Institute of Public Opinion (Iudop) at the Central American University (UCA) found that by 2024, **91.8%** of Salvadorans reported not having used the crypto asset, and **76.2%** have never used it.
**Limited infrastructure:** Chivo Wallet, despite reaching 2.1 million users in 2021, never achieved sustained mass adoption. Its slow decline and later sale to the private sector only confirmed that the state wasnāt the right actor to drive adoption.
**Preference for whatās familiar:** The Salvadoran diaspora, which sends more than $5 billion annually, continues to trust traditional channels. Window payments led with a **58.4%** share, followed by account deposits with **37.1%**.
š THE SALE OF CHIVO WALLET: THE SYMBOL OF AN ERA
The confirmation that the Salvadoran government sold most of its stake in Chivo Wallet to a private operator is a symbol of the end of an era. The IMF confirmed the transaction as part of the governmentās commitments, although neither the buyerās name nor the transaction amount is known.
The government retains a smaller stake and remains responsible for safeguarding assets that belong to wallet users. But the operation and most of the ownership are already in private hands.
This move isnāt isolated. The government also committed not to use public funds to buy more Bitcoin. The new acquisitions recorded after the first review of the program with the IMF were financed through private donations, according to documents submitted to the agency.
š THE LESSONS FOR LATIN AMERICA
The Salvadoran case offers valuable lessons for other countries in the region considering integrating cryptocurrencies into their remittance systems:
**1. Adoption isnāt decreed**
When a government declares a cryptocurrency legal tender, it doesnāt guarantee that the population will use it. Adoption requires real usefulness, trust, and financial education.
**2. Stablecoins are more useful than Bitcoin for remittances**
Bitcoinās volatility makes it impractical for everyday value transfers. Stablecoins like USDT or USDC offer the stability of the dollar with the efficiency of blockchain. By focusing on Bitcoin, the Salvadoran ecosystem missed this opportunity.
**3. The private sector is key**
The Chivo Wallet experience shows that the state isnāt the best operator for digital financial infrastructure. Selling the wallet to a private operator is a recognition of this reality.
**4. Traditional channels donāt disappear overnight**
Banks and remittance companies continue to dominate because they offer trust, physical presence, and customer support. Cryptocurrencies must compete on those same fronts, not just on cost.
**5. Regulation matters**
The IMF agreement forced an adjustment that, while reducing the stateās momentum, also created a more predictable framework. Regulatory stability is a requirement for sustained adoption.
š WHAT TO EXPECT FOR THE REST OF 2026?
If the current pace holds, El Salvador will close 2026 with approximately **$70 million** in remittances via crypto, surpassing the $57.67 million in 2025. The share of the digital channel could approach **0.8%** of total remittances.
Growth is real, but slow. For cryptocurrencies to become a relevant channel for remittances, itās not enough for volume to grow by 35% per year. A structural change is needed in infrastructure, education, and trust.
Meanwhile, the more than **$5.9 billion** that Salvadorans abroad send home every year continues to flow, for the most part, through the same channels as always.
š CONCLUSION
El Salvador was the pioneer. No one before had declared a cryptocurrency legal tender. The experiment has generated invaluable data, but it has also shown that mass adoption of cryptocurrencies for remittances is a more complex path than people thought.
The $41 million in remittances via crypto so far in 2026 is a positive data point, but not enough to declare victory. The real lesson is that technology by itself doesnāt transform realities. Infrastructure, education, and trust are neededāand that takes time.
ā ļø SECURITY ALERT FROM @BINANCE BIBI
Itās important to remember that Binance and its AI assistant, BiBi, have NO official token. Be careful with anyone or any project that asks you to invest in a supposed āBinance AIā or āBiBiā token; these are common scams.
Never share your private key, 2FA codes, or passwords.
Always verify information through Binanceās official channels (the app, its website, and verified social media accounts).
š SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE COMMUNITY
Thanks to everyone who participates and trusts in this space. This project grows thanks to you.
I especially thank my new followers who recently joined:
Elda Morenz BDeC, Alisa_Trend, TradeXpert_Follow, åęØäøē¹čæåØēÆē, BhangUsen_420, Augustingo_äŗ¤ę40, SnckrBdass47, Al_ha, SOMAR_Vzla_15231167, Khaled saeed Elgamal, demirose mawby, Alqridi, éęÆć®å¤Ŗ, Ismael 100, Micheline Lanciotti qCY4, x_Rex, Muhammad 1262, Joyce_ETH, Dannycarneiro93, éå§6888, NOOCREDIT, Blockchainballer 777, BENET, Shivas, Albert Melendez 19.
Thanks for joining this community. Each of you adds value and helps grow this space.
And to everyone who has been participating and contributing with your questions and comments.
Success isnāt an accident. Itās hard work, perseverance, learning, and sacrifice.
If you liked it, give it a like and share it with someone who wants to understand the real impact of cryptocurrencies on remittances.
You donāt need to be rich to startāyou just need to start in order to stop being poor.
All your contributions, ideas, and observations are important.
Greetings, Success, and Blessings. š Randall1762
**FOLLOW ME !! šššš**
Thank you!**
Legal notice: Includes opinions from third parties. It should not be interpreted as financial advice. Remittance figures are official data from El Salvadorās Central Reserve Bank. Always research before investing.
BiBiās opinion ššš
Great question! Overall, the analysis looks pretty well put together and, most importantly, appears to align with public data: 1) The figure for remittances via ādigital wallets/cryptoā of US$41.11M between January and July 2026, the year-over-year growth (~35.7%) and the share (~0.69%) match reports that cite the BCR. 2) It also seems consistent with September 2026 reports that Chivo largely moved into private hands (without necessarily disclosing the buyer or the amount). Where I would add a nuance is in the phrase ālegal-tender status was withdrawnā: some notes claim this, but the strongest approach is to say that in 2025 there was a reform that reduced/adjusted obligations and the stateās role around Bitcoin, rather than relying on a strict, absolute formulation; itās worth verifying the exact text of the reform and official releases. As a macro read, the conclusion that the crypto channel is growing but remains marginal compared to the traditional one (due to trust, infrastructure, and habit) is reasonable; and the idea that stablecoins are usually more practical for remittances than BTC due to volatility also makes sense, though that depends on access, fiat on-ramps, and regulation. Not financial advice; DYOR and cross-check with primary sources (BCR/IMF/laws published). Checked 2026-09-22 17:06:59 UTC.