OK, I don't want to look like a bore posting links to videos made by Benjamin Hart (as this has been done before), because he's otherwise a fairly good guy, but I think the analysis he has made about the DTV and general working authorization is a little bit off base. This time he even seems to have a problem with the Pattaya Mail article he quotes from, which he would previously constantly praise.
He claims that the reason DTV holders can't get bank accounts (for the most part...though exceptions still seem to exist here and there) is because it's "not work authorized". Well, LOL - the elite/privilege and retirement visas aren't work authorized either and yet you need a bank account to qualify for a retirement extension, so there's already one flaw in his argument. Also, consulates and embassies abroad allow you to show your proof of funds in a Thai bank account, not to mention some immigration offices insist on sighting the 500K needed for a 6 month in-country extension in a Thai bank account!
Secondly, even if not all stakeholders agreed on the terms of the DTV, but the DTV DOES allow for working remotely. Like the retirement and privilege visas, it's a "employment prohibited" visa, but all that means is you can't work in Thailand for a Thailand based entity. You CAN work for a foreign entity that does not impinge on the Thai economy and has no relationship with Thailand.
Benjamin seems to be implying that the authorities aren't going after digital nomads and remote workers, but that it's still not officially allowed. Well, according to this logic, if the Thai authorities did arrest digital nomads for doing exactly what they qualified for to get their visas, then the publicity would turn off millions of potential visitors / remote workers and have a long-lasting negative impact on the economy.
There may be some grey areas with respect to YouTubing in Thailand, but I'm not going to get into that. Most of us work for companies based abroad that have nothing to do with YouTube and that's what this analysis has been about.
His last point about the DTV supposedly being for those who want to come and go but not live in Thailand for 5 years (with appropriate border runs) is also off base. So far, there is nothing to suggest that isn't allowed. In that respect, it's nothing like the US B-1 visas he references or other similar types, such as those 10 year multiple entry ones Thai nationals receive...which in practice, are supposed to be for occasional short visits or one longer visit not exceeding 6 months, followed by an extended absence before coming again. For Thailand, no need to do that, because you can just spend 60-90 days on an exemption, leave for a year and come back to do the same, no need for a DTV then.
TLDR : Answer Summary
The discussion critiques Benjamin Hart's assertions about the Digital Nomad Visa (DTV) in Thailand, particularly his claim that DTV holders cannot open bank accounts due to it being 'not work authorized'. The author argues against Hart’s interpretation by highlighting inconsistencies with other visas like retirement visas that also lack work authorization but still require a local bank account for extensions. The post emphasizes that the DTV allows holding remote jobs for foreign companies, contradicting Hart's view that remote work isn't officially permitted. Lastly, the author challenges Hart's claim about the DTV's intended use, arguing that it provides more flexibility than suggested, and calls for clarity regarding the visa exempt category in Thailand.
DTV VISA RESOURCES / SERVICES
