Virtually every bitcoiner might think they are excited by the concept of the US government obtaining BTC (and perhaps a basket of other crypto assets) and effectively ratifying it as a resultant global asset. But I count myself among a few holdouts where development is not considered positive for Bitcoin or the US government itself. There are eight reasons why you don’t support policies.
What you can do is easily revert
If Bitcoiners want to sustain the reserve, they should want Trump to seek Congressional approval for the purchase (as is customary due to large spending). If it was done solely by Executive Fiat, the next administration doesn’t feel bound by policy and can easily reverse it (and in the process brings the market to its core). If Bitcoiner truly believes that the US will benefit from acquiring and holding Bitcoin for a long period of time, they will have no problem arguing that the government will pass laws that allow Trump to spend reserves rather than unilaterally enacting policies.
The fact that many Bitcoiners hope that Trump is cited policies without asking Congress for approval shows that they are not actually honest about the long-term value of US reserves, but that they are honest with their future democratic administrations.
Global Reserve Issuers shouldn’t confuse themselves
The United States is the issuer of the global reserve currency. It remains to be seen how crypto sanctuaries will be placed simply as investment funds or as dollar-specific, such as new product-based currency systems like the old gold standard.
If cryptographic protected areas are thought to provide new support for the dollar, I think this will cause great anxiety in the dollar and the Treasury market. In effect, the government believes it no longer has faith in the dollar system as it exists now, and informs us that radical change is necessary. I think this will already be a high rate as I have come to wonder if the US is considering defaulting its debt. Rather than messing around with the overall structure of the dollar system, governments should focus on reinforcing investors’ belief in their ability to maintain debt by pursuing policies that reduce growth and deficits.
Many bitcoiners don’t buy this line of reasoning and simply want to accelerate the collapse of the dollar. I consider this to be a kind of financial terrorism. I don’t believe in financial acceleratorism and don’t think Bitcoin, or any other CryptoAsset, is ready to act as a support for the new product standards for the dollar.
The US has already made ample exposure to Bitcoin
American funds and individuals hold more Bitcoin than citizens of any other country on the planet. Almost certainly at a big margin. The US government has already benefited from this situation. When Bitcoin rises, Americans who realize that their profits are borrowing taxes from the government are either 20% or 40% of their profits based on the duration of their status.
This is a meaningful point that you won’t overlook. The US is already profiting more than any other country through tax realization when Bitcoin rises. In light of this, should we really choose a massive fight and insist that the US government is exposed directly to these assets? No one is pushing the US government to acquire stakes in Apple or Nvidia. Why Bitcoin?
Crypto-protected territories have no “strategic” value
In general, assets and goods acquired by the US at the government level are things that may be needed in a pinch and must be accumulated in advance. Oil reserves are a great example as oil is clearly an essential commodity and it may not be possible for a crisis to acquire all the oil needed.
It also maintains reserves of other types of strategic assets, including medical supplies and equipment, rare earth minerals, metals such as helium, uranium and tungsten, and agricultural commodities. All of these have a clear and obvious purpose. It is to create a spare that can be soaked in an emergency.
They also stockpile foreign FX in case they need to intervene in the currency market, but these interventions are increasingly rare. Bitcoin has no obvious strategic use (and certainly no cardano or ripples). Ordinary Americans don’t need the “supply” of Bitcoin or other crypto assets to support their quality of life. This can change when the entire financial system runs on the blockchain and requires tokens for gas (the use of similar “industry” that I can think of), but that’s not the cutting edge of play today. The only “strategic” use of Bitcoin is simply making assets at the state level and selling them later, but with other financial assets, this can be achieved with other financial assets.
Of course, if you end up trying to back the dollar with Bitcoin in some NEO Gold Standard, you’ll end up using it strategically (in that case you’ll need to refer to point #2). But I don’t think that’s what I’m trying to do now.
Crypto Reserve Dilutes Bitcoin Value Proposal
Mix rivals Crypto Assets Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, XRP and Bitcoin to give them the value of all equal government condemnation, depreciate Bitcoin and make them appear undifferentiated from these assets. Bitcoin is the only bunch with reliable supply schedules and true decentralization at the protocol level. Cryptocurrences disrupt the issue and devalue Bitcoin in the public eye. The principle bitcoiner should promote an all-or-nothing approach. Either it’s just Bitcoin or there’s no spare.
Bitcoin doesn’t need government
I wonder if Bitcoiner, the early libertarian in 2012-16, thinks that Bitcoiner in 2025 is pushing the government to back out the value of the coin? Beyond the confusing ideological evolution that the Bitcoin community has experienced, another point remains. Bitcoin is one of the best performance investments in history, monetizing it to trillions of dollars in 2025 from nothing in 2009/10. Do this all without government support, and in fact, despite the obvious hostility from a powerful nation. Crypto-preparation will turn Bitcoin from non-political assets into government play, subject to Washington’s political cycle. Bitcoiners don’t link their wagons to the government and should not start now.
It would change Americans against Bitcoiner
Only a few (5-20%) of Americans own Bitcoin, with even fewer other cryptographic procedures. Many Bitcoiners are very wealthy due to historical investments in coins and so on. When government spending is under the microscope, using taxpayer dollars — even mechanically allocated — strengthens the prices of Bitcoin and other crypto assets. Biden’s proposed student loan Amnesty met with great resistance despite the potential to apply to 43 million borrowers. Bitcoiner is a smaller bundle and does not require more financial support from the government. This policy will undoubtedly cause unnecessary backlash in the wider society against the crypto community.
It looks like self-interest
It is no secret that Trump, his cabinet and inner circles own the various crypto assets. Trump himself has launched or partnered with World Liberty Financial, which holds an NFT project built on ETH, multiple Memocoins built in Solana, and of course a series of crypto assets. What you need from Trump is a reasonable crypto policy, and it appears he is offering it based on his appointments at the Treasury Department, Commercial, SEC, CFTC, OCC and more.
However, the sourness remains to be achieved by using government resources to directly increase the value of the coins Trump (and many of his inner circles) holds. Most of us in the crypto industry are simply looking for reasonable policies and fair rules on roads so that we can do business in the US, which is far more advanced than this, suggesting using taxpayer dollars to infer the coin itself and potentially enriching ourselves and his companions.
To Trump critics, this appears corrupt. It also makes the rest of Trump’s custody policy making and regulatory efforts seem self-interested, rather than making it stand on its own as a good policy. Future administrations can choose to throw away their babies in the bath and reverse all the progress the US has made with code. The existence of reserves provides a simple moral justification for future regressive efforts.
