pahueg on Nostr: Some thoughts on the SBR announcement -> The U.S. officially labels Bitcoin a ...
Some thoughts on the SBR announcement
-> The U.S. officially labels Bitcoin a strategic asset. This is quite big, confirming Bitcoin’s significant geoeconomic and geopolitical role
-> Expect to see more 13F filings by sovereign wealth funds
-> Sovereign and supranational bodies (like IMF) will have a harder time justifying anti-bitcoin policies
-> The probability that individual states in the U.S. will put bitcoin on their balance sheets just increased
-> Should individual states own Bitcoin, the probability that the US congress agrees to something like the Lummis Bitcoin bill (buying up to 1 million BTC over 5 years) increases as well
However: Labelling Bitcoin as strategic does have its downsides though
-> The establishment of a SBR is a “careful what you wish for”-moment
-> High likelihood the US will approach Bitcoin the same way they approach oil, gold, or critical infrastructure, meaning they will seek control, influence, and risk management over its supply and stability
-> In times of severe crises, we could see government commandeer or nationalize bitcoin miners. Or assume legal authority to aggressively seize private BTC holdings out of national interest
-> With Bitcoin being deemed strategic, centralizing forces around supply, custody, mining and development will intensify (Bessent already called for bringing crypto on shore)
-> If you understand the thinking of nation states around financial rails, labeling Bitcoin as strategic does not solely mean the government will buy bitcoin but lead to “oh we should control this network”
->There’s the risk that the US gov will not want to leave further Bitcoin protocol development to chance. Imagine a scenario where an army of NIST engineers, backed by virtually unlimited funding, suddenly steps in to influence or direct its evolution.
Remember, both the Secretary of Treasury (Bessent) and Commerce (Lutnick) have held Bitcoin in the past and understand its significance.
What is widely missed but hidden in the EO document called “Presidential Actions” (not the Factsheet broadly shared), is: “The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce SHALL develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC…”
So, the actual text of the EO directs them to develop strategies to buy Bitcoin. This is very bullish price if you ask me.
There are many budget neutral strategies for acquiring Bitcoin.
-> Use USD surplus in Exchange Stabiliation Fund (ESF), netting to $39B
-> Revalue gold holdings, netting to about $800B
-> Demand IMF to include BTC in SDR or sell SDR for BTC
-> Issuing Bitcoin Bonds (Bit Bonds) -> Best option IMO, will examine in a future LNMS episode
-> Sell holdings from strategic cheese reserve held in Missouri caves, netting to about $3B (btw, hope this is Swiss cheese the US gov is holding. Every other cheese is shitcoin cheese)
-> Use tariffs proceeds to buy Bitcoin
-> Use DOGE savings?
-> The U.S. officially labels Bitcoin a strategic asset. This is quite big, confirming Bitcoin’s significant geoeconomic and geopolitical role
-> Expect to see more 13F filings by sovereign wealth funds
-> Sovereign and supranational bodies (like IMF) will have a harder time justifying anti-bitcoin policies
-> The probability that individual states in the U.S. will put bitcoin on their balance sheets just increased
-> Should individual states own Bitcoin, the probability that the US congress agrees to something like the Lummis Bitcoin bill (buying up to 1 million BTC over 5 years) increases as well
However: Labelling Bitcoin as strategic does have its downsides though
-> The establishment of a SBR is a “careful what you wish for”-moment
-> High likelihood the US will approach Bitcoin the same way they approach oil, gold, or critical infrastructure, meaning they will seek control, influence, and risk management over its supply and stability
-> In times of severe crises, we could see government commandeer or nationalize bitcoin miners. Or assume legal authority to aggressively seize private BTC holdings out of national interest
-> With Bitcoin being deemed strategic, centralizing forces around supply, custody, mining and development will intensify (Bessent already called for bringing crypto on shore)
-> If you understand the thinking of nation states around financial rails, labeling Bitcoin as strategic does not solely mean the government will buy bitcoin but lead to “oh we should control this network”
->There’s the risk that the US gov will not want to leave further Bitcoin protocol development to chance. Imagine a scenario where an army of NIST engineers, backed by virtually unlimited funding, suddenly steps in to influence or direct its evolution.
Remember, both the Secretary of Treasury (Bessent) and Commerce (Lutnick) have held Bitcoin in the past and understand its significance.
What is widely missed but hidden in the EO document called “Presidential Actions” (not the Factsheet broadly shared), is: “The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce SHALL develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC…”
So, the actual text of the EO directs them to develop strategies to buy Bitcoin. This is very bullish price if you ask me.
There are many budget neutral strategies for acquiring Bitcoin.
-> Use USD surplus in Exchange Stabiliation Fund (ESF), netting to $39B
-> Revalue gold holdings, netting to about $800B
-> Demand IMF to include BTC in SDR or sell SDR for BTC
-> Issuing Bitcoin Bonds (Bit Bonds) -> Best option IMO, will examine in a future LNMS episode
-> Sell holdings from strategic cheese reserve held in Missouri caves, netting to about $3B (btw, hope this is Swiss cheese the US gov is holding. Every other cheese is shitcoin cheese)
-> Use tariffs proceeds to buy Bitcoin
-> Use DOGE savings?