Can anyone who is pro-crypto (particularly: btc, eth) make the steelman argument for why a "strategic reserve" is necessary for these cryptocurrencies? Or even beneficial? I've been involved in the industry in various ways for years and I fundamentally don't understand why the government owning a lot of btc/eth is advantageous. I understand the "reserve" part, but I don't understand the "strategic."
I'm open to the idea that this could be both a good idea and a way to line insiders' pockets with US taxpayer money, but it really just looks like the latter to me.
(I've been able to come up with a few theories but they all involve the complete destruction of value of the US dollar, and I don't understand how that would be net good for America.)
The best case is an argument similar to the reason the US gold reserve exists. While the gold no longer directly backs the currency, gold is a neutral asset and wouldn't go to zero during wars/depressions, so could be sold strategically if needed to fund government in a dire situation.
The claim is that BTC is also a neutral asset, meaning it's not linked to any one government or economy, and it has certain properties similar to gold. And that the US should not let China or other countries stockpile this reserve asset first.
It's obviously not "necessary" for any government to function, but the claim is that the reserve properties would be strategically beneficial to weather the worldwide crises in the coming decades.
The purpose is to have a bag-holder with deep enough pockets to absorb any selling pressure by the whales who own substantial crypto holdings. That's it. That's the whole reason.
Steelman is a bit of a stretch on this move. It sounds to me like the government is seeding doubt in its own reserve currency and propping up a different currency. The only sane thing I can think of is that it's a hedge against a complete loss of faith in the dollar. But then the case would have to be made for this over going back to gold.
I am pro crypto and I absolutely could not steelman this.
Well let me put it this way.
From the perspective of crypto, crypto doesn't need the government. Honestly, the way eth has been running since the move to PoS, sort of operates with a reserve already. Crypto the technology, crypto the ecosystem does not need this. Its kind of stupid and as the article makes out, would have cypherpunks rolling in graves, unless the US goes the whole hog and converts entirely to crypto (so we can publicly audit bank holdings etc, and the government cant issue money) but that's unlikely. Honestly, adoption should be driven by making crypto more accessible without compromising security, and nothing else.
From the perspective of the government, it might make sense to have a reserve if they were going to do some kind of integration/development of crypto technology. Even if it was just to bring a wafer of stability to the platform while they participate.
However, the people that this benefits the most are the traders, so my cynicism is very high here. What shits me the most is that this brings honest to god sovereign risk to a sector thats meant to be asovereign. What if the next president dumps it all at a loss?
The sole purpose of the strategic reserves of tokens is to make them "too big to fail". Tokenbros correctly guess that their luck with impotent SEC may not last long, it may be 4 years more, or 8 years, or maybe tomorrow some Gabbard will try to demolish their sand pyramid. If said tokens are somehow already integrated into the govt. itself, then outlawing them is now a hundred time harder.
It's not that a "strategic reserve" is necessary for these cryptocurrencies. It's that holding those maybe be good for the US if their value goes up further and it can use them to buy stuff if need be. Same idea as the gold reserve really.
The first is the reality answer: the CEOs of all these companies (SOL, XRP, and ADA specifically) are directly involved and meeting with Trump officials and senators in order draft upcoming crypto legislation as, as told by ADA's creator[1]. BTC and ETH aren't included here, but they are the two largest and most impactful, recognizable cryptocurrencies already, kind of would be foolish to exclude them.
Secondly, the reason I don't think this is just "pumping insider's bags": from the perspective of a crypto-optimist, these are paradigm shifting technologies that have the potential to revolutionize global financial systems (at minimum). The "strategy" is coming from betting on this being true, and thus these assets will have high(er) value, use, and importance, in the near future.
I also don't think the reserve is going to be as large as people might get the impression. Anything in bllions sounds extremely unrealistic.
I can almost guarantee you most everyone who owns BTC will be 100% in favor of anything that will drive up it's price, because they falsely equate it's price as it's value. It has zero value despite it's price, just like beanie babies and Tulips always did.
While I completely agree crypto is full of shysters and most likely crypto has zero intrinsic value, as well the current administration tries to enrich itself through crypto, I disagree that recent change in prices after announcement proves it is a scam. Because if the government would have announced a strategic reserve in maple syrup, the syrup futures would have increased in price drastically as well.
Oh yeah agreed that the change in prices doesn't prove it's a scam, my thought was more along the lines of - when crypto insiders who have been talking up crypto as valuable/important because it's independent of the government quickly change their tune and cheer on government intervention when it goes into their pockets, it makes it pretty clear what the dynamic actually is.
We are coming to the end of the era where you could avoid major exposure to crypto speculation by simply not "investing" in it. When the government and major banks and top S&P500 companies are putting their money in crypto, just imagine the damage the next bubble pop will inevitably cause.
I have a theory that the volatility we have seen in crypto historically is due to the influence that speculators have in the price of the asset given the % of speculator vs non-speculator money sunk into BTC
As more and more "non-speculator" money enters BTC, the swings in the price will decrease. I see the "rainbow chart" as a backing to this theory. It shows how the price has been slowly settling . In 25 years we should have a very stable deflating BTC price.
I'm fine with crypto for transactions, but I'm not fine with my government using our money to pick winners and losers, conflicts of interest, emoluments, or artificially propping up what are likely bubbles and pyramid schemes.
Wow this is going to be epic! The US govt prints dollars to prop up cryptocoins!
The sad thing is how this puts more money in the hands of bad people: This is inflating the holdings of shady orgs worldwide. And the way this admin has been bumbling its way into cleptocracy, I fully expect them to lose the keys later in a Mtgox scenario. Nobody will be able to explain how the funds were drained. They'd hired the best smart contract experts from the X roster, what more could they have done?
The fact that scammers, fraudsters, Ponzi schemers and extortion racketeers have run trillions of dollars of swindles using US dollars is not evidence that the US dollar is a scam, a fraud, a Ponzi scheme or an extortion racket.
For the sake of argument, let's imagine a scenario in which, someday, a ridiculously, blatantly corrupt person became President. And Congress was aware, but had controlling majorities that, one way or another, were aligned with this situation. And the Supreme Court had already been started to be stacked by the same person. And various agencies under Executive branch, which might normally be able to push back, were being systematically gutted, and otherwise intimidated, including blatant reprisal against law enforcement officers for even investigating some past corruption case. And let's imagine that some oligarchs bought up a lot of Fourth Estate, and most of the rest of the Fourth Estate was decimated by other oligarch "disruptive tech", and tech oligarchs also control much of the remaining grassroots channels of communication. And lets imagine that, partly due to media manipulation by the oligarchs, the majority of the electorate, of all parties, had forgotten everything that they ever learned in Civics class.
In this totally hypothetical situation-- but please bear with me, and imagine, for the sake of this fun intellectual exercise, that someday this could somehow happen in the US, in theory...
What remaining US gov't checks and balances would there be? How could that corruption scenario be thwarted?
(For example, is there a way for a minority in Congress to successfully bring charges? Does the FBI or some other agency have powers to investigate and intervene, below the radar? Does Judicial have any power to intervene, perhaps if petitioned? Do states have rights to contest the situation? What if there is also a treason angle; does that activate powers from anywhere else in the government to intervene?)
If this scenario was discussed in Civics class, it flew right over my head at the time, but now seems interesting.
If tax dollars are ever used to buy cryptos, that's simply a transfer of wealth to the crypto sellers, in exchange for nothing in return. This is just another "Tax and Waste" policy. It's just money taken from one group just to give to some other group. It's immoral and illegal, because the gov't is not an investment bank.
Better yet, why not AMERICAN tax payers. I (non American) would be extremely happy for trump to pump BTC price so that I can sell my crypto at a 50x win. Thanks !
Notably, Bitcoiners are very upset about all the worthless shitcoins added to the BTC there.
While the Ethereum is arguably decentralized, maybe, kind-of, the other ones: XRP, Solana, and Cardano, are basically centralized nonsense, that at best can be considered a payment system and not a decentralized commodity.
Bitcoiners are barking up the wrong tree - their blockchain is effectively unusable without L2 chains. There is pretty much no way to transact Bitcoin quickly or cheaply without acquiescing to a third-party service that could very well be centralized.
Time will show us that all of them are shitcoins in the end. But don't take my word for it, just wait and see.
That's the view Bitcoin took, after they gave up on the kind of scaling they'd need to be a practical payment system. Ethereum is working hard on scaling beyond 100K tx/sec:
peterldowns|1 year ago
I'm open to the idea that this could be both a good idea and a way to line insiders' pockets with US taxpayer money, but it really just looks like the latter to me.
(I've been able to come up with a few theories but they all involve the complete destruction of value of the US dollar, and I don't understand how that would be net good for America.)
cypherpunks01|1 year ago
The claim is that BTC is also a neutral asset, meaning it's not linked to any one government or economy, and it has certain properties similar to gold. And that the US should not let China or other countries stockpile this reserve asset first.
It's obviously not "necessary" for any government to function, but the claim is that the reserve properties would be strategically beneficial to weather the worldwide crises in the coming decades.
Eddy_Viscosity2|1 year ago
tejohnso|1 year ago
protocolture|1 year ago
Well let me put it this way.
From the perspective of crypto, crypto doesn't need the government. Honestly, the way eth has been running since the move to PoS, sort of operates with a reserve already. Crypto the technology, crypto the ecosystem does not need this. Its kind of stupid and as the article makes out, would have cypherpunks rolling in graves, unless the US goes the whole hog and converts entirely to crypto (so we can publicly audit bank holdings etc, and the government cant issue money) but that's unlikely. Honestly, adoption should be driven by making crypto more accessible without compromising security, and nothing else.
From the perspective of the government, it might make sense to have a reserve if they were going to do some kind of integration/development of crypto technology. Even if it was just to bring a wafer of stability to the platform while they participate.
However, the people that this benefits the most are the traders, so my cynicism is very high here. What shits me the most is that this brings honest to god sovereign risk to a sector thats meant to be asovereign. What if the next president dumps it all at a loss?
beefnugs|1 year ago
- If the gov knows how to seize and keep it from criminals, then whales capable of controlling the market are reduced
- If the gov ever tries to sell, it will likely be predictable, so more manipulation benefits for those who know how to do it
- Hidden transfer of wealth from any corrupt animal directly into dump's hands without traditional paper trails
- Dump can use it to manipulate his own illegal meme coins
- Eventually it will be "hacked" and gone, definitely not by dumps closest friends who had the keys the whole time
oh by the word upside, that is for one group of people anyway
Yizahi|1 year ago
bediger4000|1 year ago
tim333|1 year ago
It's not that a "strategic reserve" is necessary for these cryptocurrencies. It's that holding those maybe be good for the US if their value goes up further and it can use them to buy stuff if need be. Same idea as the gold reserve really.
desumeku|1 year ago
The first is the reality answer: the CEOs of all these companies (SOL, XRP, and ADA specifically) are directly involved and meeting with Trump officials and senators in order draft upcoming crypto legislation as, as told by ADA's creator[1]. BTC and ETH aren't included here, but they are the two largest and most impactful, recognizable cryptocurrencies already, kind of would be foolish to exclude them.
Secondly, the reason I don't think this is just "pumping insider's bags": from the perspective of a crypto-optimist, these are paradigm shifting technologies that have the potential to revolutionize global financial systems (at minimum). The "strategy" is coming from betting on this being true, and thus these assets will have high(er) value, use, and importance, in the near future. I also don't think the reserve is going to be as large as people might get the impression. Anything in bllions sounds extremely unrealistic.
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xgGTW_GK9vM I highly suggest watching this video. He gives a quite sobering and optimistic take of the situation.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
quantadev|1 year ago
sega_sai|1 year ago
schwarzrules|1 year ago
kolchinski|1 year ago
s1artibartfast|1 year ago
The only intrinsic value of crypto is that it can not be unilaterally inflated away, and can be difficult to digitally seize.
In this respect it is similar to gold. It lacks the physical uses of gold, but is easier to transport.
No, I don't think the US government should invest in it. It should make sure it's own currency retains value.
JeremyNT|1 year ago
The only difference here is mentioning of specific cryptocurrencies.
Prove? That's a high bar to clear. But this is a spike at merely reiterating a bailout plan.
77pt77|1 year ago
So do fiat currencies.
tdeck|1 year ago
xtracto|1 year ago
As more and more "non-speculator" money enters BTC, the swings in the price will decrease. I see the "rainbow chart" as a backing to this theory. It shows how the price has been slowly settling . In 25 years we should have a very stable deflating BTC price.
jordanb|1 year ago
toomuchtodo|1 year ago
tim333|1 year ago
alsoforgotmypwd|1 year ago
lolc|1 year ago
The sad thing is how this puts more money in the hands of bad people: This is inflating the holdings of shady orgs worldwide. And the way this admin has been bumbling its way into cleptocracy, I fully expect them to lose the keys later in a Mtgox scenario. Nobody will be able to explain how the funds were drained. They'd hired the best smart contract experts from the X roster, what more could they have done?
qgin|1 year ago
jxjnskkzxxhx|1 year ago
panarky|1 year ago
zanecodes|1 year ago
m3sta|1 year ago
neilv|1 year ago
For the sake of argument, let's imagine a scenario in which, someday, a ridiculously, blatantly corrupt person became President. And Congress was aware, but had controlling majorities that, one way or another, were aligned with this situation. And the Supreme Court had already been started to be stacked by the same person. And various agencies under Executive branch, which might normally be able to push back, were being systematically gutted, and otherwise intimidated, including blatant reprisal against law enforcement officers for even investigating some past corruption case. And let's imagine that some oligarchs bought up a lot of Fourth Estate, and most of the rest of the Fourth Estate was decimated by other oligarch "disruptive tech", and tech oligarchs also control much of the remaining grassroots channels of communication. And lets imagine that, partly due to media manipulation by the oligarchs, the majority of the electorate, of all parties, had forgotten everything that they ever learned in Civics class.
In this totally hypothetical situation-- but please bear with me, and imagine, for the sake of this fun intellectual exercise, that someday this could somehow happen in the US, in theory...
What remaining US gov't checks and balances would there be? How could that corruption scenario be thwarted?
(For example, is there a way for a minority in Congress to successfully bring charges? Does the FBI or some other agency have powers to investigate and intervene, below the radar? Does Judicial have any power to intervene, perhaps if petitioned? Do states have rights to contest the situation? What if there is also a treason angle; does that activate powers from anywhere else in the government to intervene?)
If this scenario was discussed in Civics class, it flew right over my head at the time, but now seems interesting.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
herodotus|1 year ago
alsoforgotmypwd|1 year ago
quantadev|1 year ago
jordanb|1 year ago
tanseydavid|1 year ago
karp773|1 year ago
xtracto|1 year ago
dpc_01234|1 year ago
While the Ethereum is arguably decentralized, maybe, kind-of, the other ones: XRP, Solana, and Cardano, are basically centralized nonsense, that at best can be considered a payment system and not a decentralized commodity.
bigyabai|1 year ago
Time will show us that all of them are shitcoins in the end. But don't take my word for it, just wait and see.
goosejuice|1 year ago
DennisP|1 year ago
https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2025/01/23/l1l2future.html
alsoforgotmypwd|1 year ago
N_Lens|1 year ago
jxjnskkzxxhx|1 year ago
jenifergomez|1 year ago
[deleted]