resistancemoney on Nostr: There are some very bad objections to the idea of a strategic bitcoin reserve on the ...
There are some very bad objections to the idea of a strategic bitcoin reserve on the part of the US Federal Government. For example:
1. Bitcoin is bad for the world (false; our best science shows that, on net, bitcoin is good)
2. Bitcoin isn't valuable (false; bitcoin is precious, and useful)
3. Buying or holding bitcoin undermines American values and empowers foreign adversaries (false; bitcoin embodies American values, and a huge chunk of bitcoin is held by Americans)
4. Buying or holding bitcoin weakens the American dollar (this one is complicated, and depends on what it means to 'weaken' the dollar, and how the reserve strategy is actually implemented)
5. People only like the strategic reserve idea because it pumps their bitcoin bags (this one is very psychologically important -- but irrelevant to the merits of the policy as such)
Following are some other objections that strike me as more sensible. What do you think? What are the best replies to these objections? Are there other sensible objections I'm missing?
6. A bitcoin-stockpiling strategy gives the state more incentive to seize bitcoin
7. The state should be neutral between asset classes and assets within them; to hold or buy bitcoin is to pick a winner
8. Massive state holdings confer powers in contentious fork wars that the state shouldn't have (e.g., to massively sell off the more freedom- or privacy-oriented side of a hard fork, and thus move markets in that direction)
9. A sovereign wealth fund should aim at yield-bearing assets to displace taxes or debt, but bitcoin doesn't offer any yield
10. Policy should be neutral about a 'number go up' thesis; but stockpiling bitcoin is pretty plainly a bet on that thesis
11. Impoverished and indebted governments should pay down debts rather than acquire assets
1. Bitcoin is bad for the world (false; our best science shows that, on net, bitcoin is good)
2. Bitcoin isn't valuable (false; bitcoin is precious, and useful)
3. Buying or holding bitcoin undermines American values and empowers foreign adversaries (false; bitcoin embodies American values, and a huge chunk of bitcoin is held by Americans)
4. Buying or holding bitcoin weakens the American dollar (this one is complicated, and depends on what it means to 'weaken' the dollar, and how the reserve strategy is actually implemented)
5. People only like the strategic reserve idea because it pumps their bitcoin bags (this one is very psychologically important -- but irrelevant to the merits of the policy as such)
Following are some other objections that strike me as more sensible. What do you think? What are the best replies to these objections? Are there other sensible objections I'm missing?
6. A bitcoin-stockpiling strategy gives the state more incentive to seize bitcoin
7. The state should be neutral between asset classes and assets within them; to hold or buy bitcoin is to pick a winner
8. Massive state holdings confer powers in contentious fork wars that the state shouldn't have (e.g., to massively sell off the more freedom- or privacy-oriented side of a hard fork, and thus move markets in that direction)
9. A sovereign wealth fund should aim at yield-bearing assets to displace taxes or debt, but bitcoin doesn't offer any yield
10. Policy should be neutral about a 'number go up' thesis; but stockpiling bitcoin is pretty plainly a bet on that thesis
11. Impoverished and indebted governments should pay down debts rather than acquire assets