@ Geektoshi
2025-02-08 23:29:14
Imagine a world where governments, long trusted to protect fiat currencies that can be printed without limit, openly declare that they trust a decentralized digital asset over traditional money. In recent months, that vision has begun to crystallize.
The Czech National Bank has signaled a gradual acceptance of digital assets as part of its broader monetary policy recalibration with changes to how capital gains taxes are handled on Bitcoin and a possible adoption by its central bank into its reserves stockpile. Simultaneously, El Salvador- once the poster child for Bitcoin as legal tender- has fine-tuned its policy framework at the behest of the WEF to no longer accept Bitcoin as legal tender. Meanwhile, several U.S. states have introduced bills to establish official Bitcoin reserves, and many are under active consideration. See [Bitcoin Laws](https://Bitcoinlaws.io/) for a full breakdown of where these bills stand. Let's explore the pros of governments adopting strategic Bitcoin reserves.
Bitcoiners have long argued that the ultimate endorsement of Bitcoin comes when even the most established state institutions place their trust in it. Recent moves by several U.S. states—where lawmakers are proposing legislation to create official Bitcoin reserves—lend credence to this argument. When state governments start to codify the creation of a Bitcoin reserve, it signals that even entities steeped in traditional financial orthodoxy now recognize Bitcoin as a viable, strategic asset. For these states, it is imperative to accumulate hard assets like Bitcoin in reserves as they have no control over the monetary supply and, therefore, can suffer from debasement just as much as any citizen or sovereign nation not in control of their currency.
Suppose you have kept up with [recent news](https://decrypt.co/303304/czech-central-bank-bitcoin-reserve) that the Czech national bank was considering holding a considerable portion of their assets in Bitcoin. In that case, you understand the paradigm shift we are seeing. Banks are becoming less cautious in handling digital assets in a stark department, compared to previous dismissals of cryptocurrencies as genuine assets. While it is true that European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde wields considerable influence on monetary policy in Europe and may have put a temporary damper on the Czech central bank's aspirations for now ([See Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ecbs-lagarde-slaps-down-czech-proposal-Bitcoin-reserves-2025-01-30/)), it should be evident that in the words of some Bitcoiners, "nothing stops this train." For Bitcoiners, such shifts validate the claim that Bitcoin's decentralized, algorithmic structure outperforms fiat systems, which are vulnerable to political manipulation and unchecked inflation. The Czech president's [signing into law](https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/02/06/czech-republic-to-eliminate-taxes-on-long-term-crypto-gains) a bill removing capital gains tax from all Bitcoin held for at least three years proves that even those at the highest levels of policy creation are beginning to lose control of the narrative.
This state endorsement is more than symbolic. It is a strategic vote of confidence in Bitcoin's underlying technology—its transparent, immutable ledger and deflationary nature. When lawmakers and regulators in the United States start to invest public resources in Bitcoin, it undermines the decades-old narrative that only traditional assets like gold or oil are worthy of state backing. Instead, it repositions Bitcoin as an asset not just with a future but of the future. It can enhance and even replace all other existing reserve assets, lending further proof of Bitcoin as a store of value.
Bitcoin's capped supply is at the core of its appeal—only 21 million coins will ever exist. Bitcoiners assert that this scarcity is fundamental to Bitcoin's value proposition. A strategic Bitcoin reserve at any governmental level would effectively lock away a significant portion of the circulating supply, increasing its scarcity and further driving its price up.
Many in the Bitcoin and overall crypto community lauded President Bukele's 2021 announcement that his country would begin accumulating Bitcoin and giving it legal tender status. To Bitcoiners, it was a sign that governments were starting to see Bitcoin as a legitimate store of value, a medium of exchange, and vindication of everything they had fought for over the years. Of course, many will want to say that the country's acquisition of Bitcoin was simply a power play to get the World Economic Forum to come to the bargaining table, but if so, what? Here we are four years later, and El Salvador is [no longer requiring Bitcoin as legal tender](https://newsroompanama.com/2025/02/07/el-salvador-ends-Bitcoin-as-legal-tender-heres-why-Bitcoin-didnt-work/). This is not a step back, it is simply another example of why we are winning. I'll discuss this further in another article, but isn't it convenient that President Bukele continues to accumulate Bitcoin for his country after making a concession to the WEF for funds? Tick, tock, next block.
Bitcoiners view introducing reserve bills across U.S. states as a powerful mechanism for further tightening Bitcoin's available supply. Each government-held coin is one fewer coin available to the market, creating a scarcity premium. Market forces do not artificially impose this scarcity but are instead the natural outcome of an institution with deep pockets choosing to hold Bitcoin as a strategic asset. In a world where every coin in reserve represents a bulwark against inflation and economic uncertainty, Bitcoiners argue that this state-induced scarcity will profoundly affect Bitcoin's value over time. If you don't believe that to be the case, look at this chart of coins available on OTC desks last year, and let me tell you that you are not bullish enough. I'll explore the impact of OTC sales on price in a future article.
For years, Bitcoiners have decried the inherent weaknesses of fiat currencies—specifically, the ease with which governments can expand the money supply, leading to inflation and eroded purchasing power. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers a fixed supply, decentralized issuance, and an ever-shrinking inflation rate that makes it immune to the government's printing press.
When a government opts for Bitcoin reserves, it makes a financial decision and a political statement. It says that the era of limitless money printing is over and that transparency, decentralization, and scarcity are the hallmarks of a sound monetary system. Institutional legitimacy is crucial for any asset that aspires to be a cornerstone of the global financial system.
When the United States, the world's largest economy, signals its intent to hold Bitcoin in its reserves, it sends a resounding message that can trigger a domino effect worldwide. The recent [repeal of SAB121](https://cointelegraph.com/news sec-cancels-crypto-accounting-guidance-sab-121) by the Securities and Exchange Commission is a step in the right direction, by now allowing companies and course, governments at every level to accumulate Bitcoin into their reserves. When central banks like the Czech National Bank begin to signal openness toward digital assets, it paves the way for broader institutional participation. Once wary of the volatile digital asset market, financial institutions, asset managers, and [even pension funds](https://www.wpr.org/news/wisconsin-pension-fund-bitcoin) are gradually warming up to Bitcoin.
We cannot underestimate what sort of network effect this will have on Bitcoin as its utility and value proposition become more robust as a result of state-level adoption. Bitcoiners believe that such a shift will cement Bitcoin's status as a universally accepted and trusted store of value, capable of challenging—and eventually surpassing—traditional reserve assets like gold and fiat currencies.
One of the most enduring arguments among Bitcoiners is that Bitcoin is the digital successor to gold. For centuries, gold has been the haven, the ultimate store of value during times of crisis. Bitcoin, with its fixed supply and digital accessibility, is ideally positioned to take over that role in the modern era. A state-backed Bitcoin reserve would serve as this narrative's definitive stamp of approval. If a government is willing to set aside billions of dollars in a digital asset, it must believe that this asset can preserve and even appreciate its value over time. Such a move would provide a critical psychological boost to the market, as both retail and institutional investors begin to see Bitcoin as not just a speculative tool but as the modern equivalent of a haven set. Gold continues to appreciate this year while Bitcoin remains relatively flat. How long until we see it decouple from the markets and witness price appreciation not seen since the last halving?
I hope you enjoyed reading this lengthy article on the pros of governments adopting a strategic Bitcoin reserve. If you'd like to chime in, you can find me on Nostr via [@geek](https://www.primal.net/geek) on Primal, or via [my npub]( .npub1m2jphmdkskgnvwl5gplksl9e0zwv2sldqf9mwlpz6tyymz84g9fsqr3wgu) anywhere else. In part two, I will examine the other side of the debate, the cons, and the potential pitfalls of such a policy. Stay tuned!