I need to point to one of many potential points of confusion in the comments.

Generally legal tender means that the country establishes the currency as a means to settle all debts and accepts tax payments denominated in the currency.

In most countries some merchants will accept foreign currency . This does not make those 'legal tender' in any meaningful sense, even though some articles will misuse the term losely.

Likewise in the articles cited, countries are merely choosing to regulate the usage of bitcoin, not endorsing or mandating it.

In all of these countries your tax bill is determined in the local currency. Court judgments are determined in the local currency. Bitcoin does not have this status anywhere.

In fact if you check Google Trends, interest in Bitcoin has plummeted after late 2017 when FOMO drove a substantial buying spree. This is true in Japan also, where searches for dollar and Euro now exceed those for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has been around for ten years. It has not achieved widespread usage and acceptance as a payment mechanism for two reasons. The validation mechanism and the requirements for maintaining the network make it a costly mechanism. Many of the costs are obscured because of the payments to miners in the form of newly minted coins. The other is that the usage of other payment mechanisms is easier.

I'll just add that a noted CEO was sanctioned for making erroneous statements concerning his company. Should those who promote crypto currency be held to similar standards?