One might think that practically all bitcoiners would be delighted with the notion that the United States government acquires BTC (and perhaps a basket of other cryptoensets) and effectively mitigated it as a global asset of consequence. However, I consider myself among the few holders that do not see development as positive for Bitcoin or the United States government itself. Here are eight reasons why politics does not support.
What is done easily gets rid of easily
If Bitcoiners want a reservation to last, they should want Trump to seek the authorization of the Congress for a purchase (as usual for any large disbursement). If it is carried out only by Execution Fiat, the next administration will not be forced by politics and could revert it trivially (and replicate the market in the process). If Bitcoiners sincerely believe that it benefits the United States Bitcoin and maintain it for a long period of time, then they would not have trouble insisting that the government approve a law that authorizes the expense for the reserve, instead of Trump promulgate unilaterally.
The fact that many Bitcoiners wait for Trump to do the policy without asking for approval to the Congress that shows that they are chasing a short -term bomb, instead of being honest about the long -term value of the reserve for the United States, a future democratic administration will not have repairs in the reserve immediately.
The global reserve issuer should not interrupt
The United States is the issuer of the global reserve currency. We still do not know how the cryptographic reserve will be positioned, as simply an investment fund, or something more inherent in the dollar, such as a new currency system based on basic products such as the old gold standard.
If the encryption reserve that provides a new support for the dollar is contemplated, I think this will cause significant concern in the dollar and treasury markets. Indeed, the government will point out that it believes that it no longer has faith in the dollar system, as it currently exists, and a radical change is needed. I imagine that this would make the high rates increase, since the market begins to wonder if the United States is contemplating a breach of its debt. The Government must focus on underpinning the faith of investors on its ability to maintain their debt obligations by seeking policies in favor of the growth and reduction of deficit, not playing with the entire structure of the dollars.
Many bitcoiners do not buy this line of reasoning and simply want to accelerate the collapse of the dollar. I see this as a kind of financial terrorism. I do not believe in financial acceleration or believe that Bitcoin, or any other cryptoSet, is ready to serve as the support of a new standard of basic products for the dollar.
The United States already has a lot of exposure to Bitcoin
American funds and individuals have more bitcoin than citizens of any other country on the planet, almost certainly for a great margin. The United States government already benefits from this state of affairs. When Bitcoin goes up, Americans who realize their profits must taxes to the government, either 20% or 40% of their profits depending on how long they have held the position.
This is a significant point not to overlook. The United States already benefits when Bitcoin rises, through fiscal accomplishments, more than any other country. In light of this, do we really need to choose a massive fight and insist that the United States government wins? straight Exhibition for these assets too? Nobody is pressing so that the United States government acquires Apple or Nvidia actions. Why Bitcoin?
There is no “strategic” value in a cryptographic reserve
In general, the assets and products that the United States acquires at the governmental level are things that could be necessary in case of trouble, and must accumulate in advance. The oil reserve is a good example, since the oil is clearly an essential product, and in a crisis, we may not be able to acquire all the oil we need.
We also maintain reserves of other types of strategic assets, such as supplies and medical equipment, rare earth minerals, helium, metals such as uranium and tungsten, and agricultural products. All of these have a clear and obvious purpose: create a reserve that can immerse yourself in a moment of emergency.
We also store foreign FX, in case we need to do interventions in foreign exchange markets, although these interventions are increasingly rare. There is no obvious strategic use for Bitcoin (and certainly non -cardan or ripple). Common Americans do not need a “supply” of Bitcoin or any other cryptasset to support their quality of life. This could change if the entire financial system is executed in a block chain and we need tokens for gas (the only “industrial” analogous use that might think), but that is not the state of play today. The only “strategic” use for Bitcoin simply “the asset at the state level is” long “and sell it later, but could achieve this with any other financial asset is nothing unique (or other resource (or any other asset.
Of course, if you will finally support the dollar with Bitcoin in some type of neo gold standard, then it would have strategic use (in which case you must consult point #2). But I don’t think that is the intention at this time.
A cryptographic reserve dilutes the Bitcoin value proposal
Mix bitcoin with rival cryptoassets Ethereum, Cardano, Solana and XRP and give everyone an equal Printur of the government devalues Bitcoin and causes it to seem indifferently of these assets. Bitcoin is the only one in the group with a credible schedule and a genuine decentralization at the protocol level. An encryption reserve confuses the problem and devalues Bitcoin in the public eye. Bitcoinists of principle must press for an approach to all or nothing; or only bitcoin, or without reservation.
Bitcoin does not need the government
I wonder what the first 2012-16 libertarian bitcoinists would think of 2025 Bitcoiners who push the government to support the value of their currencies. Beyond the confusing ideological evolution that the Bitcoin community has suffered, there is another point. Bitcoin has been one of the best performance investments in history, monetizing anything in 2009/10 to billion dollars in added value in 2025. He has done all this without government support and, in fact, in many cases, despite the open hostility of the powerful national states. A cryptographic reserve would transform bitcoin of an apolitical asset in the government’s trial, subject to Washington’s political cycles. Bitcoiners were never to hook their car to the government, and they should not start now.
Would make Americans against Bitcoiners
Only a fraction (somewhere between 5-20%) of Americans has Bitcoin, and even less other crypto-setes. Many bitcoiners are extremely rich due to their historical investments in the currency and others. At a time when government spending is under the microscope, the use of taxpayers’ dollars, regardless of how mechanically they are distributed, to strengthen the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be politically unpopular. The amnesty of the student loan proposed by Biden met with great resistance, although it potentially applied to 43 million borrowers. Bitcoiners are a smaller group and even less need financial support from the government. This policy would undoubtedly cause an unnecessary reaction in the broadest society against the cryptographic community.
He looks selfish
It is no secret that Trump and his cabinet and internal circle have owned in several cryptasesets. Trump himself has launched, or is affiliated with: an NFT project based on ETH, more than one memory built in Solana and, of course, World Liberty Financial that has a series of cryptographic assets. What we need Trump is a reasonable cryptographic policy, and based on its quotes in treasure, commerce, sec, CFTC, Occ and others, it seems that it is delivering that.
However, the use of government resources to directly increase the value of the coins that Trump (and many in their internal circle) hold leaves a sour taste. Most of us in the cryptographic industry have simply been asking for reasonable policies and fair rules of the road so that we can do business in the United States, Trump proposes to go much further and use taxpayers’ dollars to speculate on the currencies themselves, potentially enriching themselves and their associates.
For Trump’s critics, this seems corrupt. It also makes the rest of the policy formulation and regulatory efforts of Trump of Trump seem selfish, instead of letting themselves remain alone as a good policy. A future administration could choose to throw the baby with the bath water, investing all the progress that the United States has done with cryptography. The existence of the reserve gives future regressive efforts an easy moral justification.
