Bitcoin officially becomes the US strategic reserve. Although it is a Mini version, it is of great significance.
Blockchain platform
The United States is setting a precedent. According to a post on X by David Sacks, the White House cryptocurrency director, President Trump signed an executive order on March 6 to explicitly establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve. However, the order requires a comprehensive inventory of Bitcoin held by the federal government, and does not involve other Bitcoins on the market (over the years, the United States has accumulated 200,000 Bitcoins through various legal cases, currently worth about $17 billion).
This policy caused a market shock, and Bitcoin fell 5% to about $85,000 after the news was announced. At the same time, it also sparked widespread discussion about its economic value, legal basis and geopolitical impact.
This article will explore this development in depth: from the gold reserve system after World War II to the impact of US crypto reserves on global finance, monetary policy and law.
1. Historical background: from gold to crypto assets
The concept of national currency reserves has a long history. After the end of World War II, the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1944 established an international monetary system centered on gold and linked the US dollar to gold at a fixed exchange rate of $35 per ounce. At that time, the United States controlled about two-thirds of the world's gold reserves, and this advantage established the position of the US dollar as the pillar of the global financial system. Under this gold exchange standard, the currencies of various countries were anchored to the US dollar, which could be directly exchanged for gold. The system provided financial stability and promoted global economic growth for the next two decades.
However, in the late 1960s, the United States' gold reserves came under pressure due to its continued balance of payments deficit and surging demand for the US dollar. In August 1971, President Nixon announced a suspension of the exchange of the US dollar for gold, officially ending the Bretton Woods system and ushering in a new era of floating fiat currencies. Since then, the US dollar has become a pure legal currency, supported only by government credit.
Despite the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the US gold reserves remain an important asset of the central bank. As of today, the U.S. official gold reserves still stand at 8,133 metric tons (the world’s largest), a legacy from the Bretton Woods era.
Gold’s long-term appeal lies in its inflation-fighting and safe-haven properties. Since $35/ounce in 1944, the price of gold has soared to about $1,900/ounce, reflecting decades of fiat currency expansion. Meanwhile, the modern financial system has developed around the U.S. dollar, which remains the world’s dominant reserve currency.
As of mid-2023, the U.S. dollar accounted for about 59% of global foreign exchange reserves (a gradual decline from more than 70% in the early 2000s, indicating that reserve assets are diversifying).
Today’s major international reserve assets include: foreign exchange reserves (mainly U.S. dollars, euros, yen, etc.), the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) launched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1969, and gold.
The rise of Bitcoin and "digital gold"
In 2009, Bitcoin was born as a decentralized digital currency with a constant total supply of 21 million coins, which is regarded by many as "digital gold". For most of the 2010s, cryptocurrencies were still niche investments, but by the 2020s, the total market value of the crypto market has reached trillions of dollars and attracted the attention of mainstream institutions.
In 2021, El Salvador became the first country in the world to use Bitcoin as legal tender, and its treasury currently holds more than 5,700 BTC (El Salvador launches a $360 million Bitcoin treasury monitoring website). At the same time, private companies such as MicroStrategy and Tesla have also included Bitcoin in their balance sheets, and dozens of investment funds have launched crypto-related products. As the influence of Bitcoin and other crypto assets continues to rise, people have begun to discuss whether they can play a role similar to gold in national reserves.
US politicians, such as Senator Cynthia Lummis, have even proposed the idea of establishing a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve" to ensure that the country holds a certain amount of Bitcoin. She submitted a bill to Congress in 2024 proposing to purchase up to 1 million BTC (about 5% of the total supply of Bitcoin) as a strategic asset and hedging tool. Although the bill failed to advance at the time, the concept laid the foundation for the new government's recent decision-making.
2. The economic and geopolitical impact of the US cryptocurrency reserves
The US is going to establish a cryptocurrency reserve, and the market reacted quickly to the news. A few days ago, President Trump announced that Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano would be included in the US strategic reserve, which immediately triggered a surge in the crypto market-Bitcoin prices rose by more than 11% (to about $94,000), Ethereum rose by 13% (to about $2,516), and the entire crypto market value increased by more than $300 billion in a few hours. This surge reflects the general view of investors: government endorsement may enhance the credibility and durability of these crypto assets.
21Shares analyst Federico Brokate pointed out: "This move shows that the US government is actively participating in the crypto economy." In other words, the United States is using national influence to influence the future direction of the crypto market.
1) Monetary policy and fiscal stability: opportunities and challenges
Supporters believe that crypto asset reserves can enhance the fiscal resilience of the United States. Senator Cynthia Lummis said that Bitcoin can be used as a hedge against inflation and national debt expansion. When prices rise, the government can sell some assets to repay debts. Historically, high inflation and fiscal deficits have often driven investors to turn to hard assets such as gold, pushing up their prices.
"Strategic holding of Bitcoin can not only serve as a safe-haven asset, but also allow the government to sell it at a high level to reduce debt." Economist Will Alden commented. In theory, when the dollar weakens or global uncertainty rises, crypto asset reserves may increase in value and provide a buffer for finance. In addition, the establishment of reserves can release dollar liquidity and put it into other uses instead of continuing to hoard foreign exchange or gold. If the crypto market continues to grow, the United States may be able to obtain excess returns from it.
Opponents warn that the policy is full of risks and uncertainties. Cryptocurrency prices fluctuate violently, and large-scale government purchases may cause market concerns about the US fiscal situation and even fuel expectations of rising inflation, forming a self-fulfilling crisis. Economist Thomas Hendrickson pointed out that if the market interprets the US's turn to Bitcoin as a loss of confidence in the US dollar, it may weaken global trust in the US fiscal stability and the US dollar. In addition, the government's entry may push up the price of crypto assets and form a bubble. Once the market collapses, taxpayers will bear the losses.
Some critics also question the necessity of crypto reserves. Norbert Michel, an economist at the Cato Institute, believes that the government should focus on more pressing economic issues rather than investing in Bitcoin: "There are more important things to solve."
2) Global financial competition and US leadership
The implementation of this policy is about the competition for global financial leadership. By establishing a reserve of crypto assets, the United States is trying to establish influence in the crypto field and seize the initiative.
The United States' choice of open, decentralized crypto assets over central bank-led digital currencies has created a global "freedom vs. control" contrast. James Butterfill of CoinShares noted: "This decision is in line with the 'America First' agenda and shows a more nationalistic support for crypto technology."
He also emphasized that the United States' inclusion of assets such as Solana (SOL) and Cardano (ADA) in its reserves (which are more like tech stocks than stored value assets) shows that the government is supporting local blockchain innovation. This move may not only enhance the development of the US fintech industry, but also consolidate the dollar's dominance in global crypto transactions (most stablecoins are currently denominated in US dollars).
3) Geopolitical impact: global effects and power games
Other countries will pay close attention to the implementation of this policy. The United States' actions may prompt allies to include crypto assets in national reserves or fiscal investments to avoid falling behind in the global financial digitalization process. In addition, this trend may prompt institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reassess the role of crypto assets in the global reserve system.
For countries that are highly dependent on the US dollar, the US's crypto reserves may be seen as an endorsement of the concept of "digital gold", further promoting the mainstreaming of Bitcoin. However, the US's large-scale holdings of crypto assets may also raise concerns:
Will the US have too much influence in decentralized networks?
If the government holds 1 million BTC, it will become the world's largest single holder, which may affect market liquidity and even dominate the governance decisions of some blockchain protocols.
"If other countries act first, the United States may fall behind." Duane Morris LLP analysts pointed out in the report that establishing crypto reserves and developing a clear regulatory framework may be the key to ensuring that the United States maintains its leadership in the global crypto economy.
In short, the US's crypto reserves are not only an investment decision, but also part of a financial strategy. It may affect the global financial landscape, related policies, national fiscal stability, and even the balance of geopolitical power.
3. Legal and Regulatory Impact: Exploring Unknown Legal Territory
Establishing a federal cryptocurrency reserve brings new legal challenges and a rapidly changing regulatory environment. To date, U.S. laws and regulators have not uniformly defined crypto assets, which may be considered securities, commodities, property or currency, and a series of court rulings and government agency actions are gradually defining their legal boundaries.
Prior to this, some key court cases, administrative rulings and regulations have provided important references for how cryptocurrency reserves are managed and potential restrictions.
1) Securities Law - SEC v. Ripple (2020–2023)
A landmark case was the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suing Ripple Labs, alleging that its XRP was an unregistered security. In July 2023, Judge Analisa Torres of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York made two somewhat contradictory rulings:
Ripple's sale of XRP on the secondary market was not a securities transaction;
Ripple's sale of XRP directly to institutional investors violated securities laws.
This shows to some extent that the same crypto asset may have different legal attributes in different trading scenarios, and provides the first judicial precedent on the applicability of the 1946 Howey test (determining whether an investment contract is a security) in the field of digital assets.
The ruling shows that tokens like XRP are not necessarily regulated by the SEC when traded in the retail market, which means that widely circulated crypto assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum may not be considered securities. This result is seen as a victory for the crypto industry because it limits the SEC's regulatory power. However, the SEC is still appealing part of the ruling, and legal uncertainty remains.
For the US cryptocurrency reserves, this case has important implications. If the crypto assets in the reserves are identified as securities in the future, the government may need to comply with stricter compliance requirements (such as securities custody and financial reporting). Therefore, the reserves are expected to hold Bitcoin and Ethereum first (because they are generally regarded as commodities by regulators), and XRP (based on the ruling in the Ripple case, it may not be regarded as a security when traded in the open market).
2) Securities Law - SEC v. Coinbase (2023–2025)
In June 2023, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Coinbase (the largest CEX in the United States), accusing it of operating as an unregistered securities CEX, broker and clearing agency, and involving multiple crypto asset transactions.
This case became a classic example of the SEC's "enforcement is regulation" during the previous government period, when the SEC tried to regulate the market through more than 100 enforcement actions against crypto assets (covering CEX operations, token sales, etc.).
Coinbase not only defended itself in court, but also submitted a rulemaking petition to the SEC, essentially asking the SEC (and the federal appeals court) to clarify:
Which crypto assets are securities;
How can the industry be legal and compliant.
However, by early 2025, there was a major shift in the regulatory wind: under the new government's pro-crypto stance, the SEC withdrew its lawsuit against Coinbase and terminated its investigation into several crypto companies. Although the withdrawal of the lawsuit has eliminated some of the legal uncertainty of CEX, the core issue remains unresolved - which crypto assets should be classified as securities, which still requires new legislation to clarify.
Coinbase and other industry participants are still urging Congress to enact clear regulations because the decades-old Howey test and the current securities regulatory framework are no longer applicable to the modern crypto market.
For the US crypto asset reserves, the SEC's ending of the Coinbase lawsuit is a positive signal:
This shows that regulators will not prevent the government from holding or trading crypto assets on the grounds of "unregistered securities";
It also means that the regulatory environment is becoming more relaxed, which may reduce the legal barriers to the custody and management of national crypto reserves.
In other words, although there is still uncertainty in securities laws, the feasibility of government management of crypto reserves is increasing.
3) Commodity Classification - CFTC and Other Agencies
Another important pillar of crypto regulation is commodity law. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has long argued that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act. Federal courts have recognized this position, giving the CFTC the power to regulate fraud and manipulation in the crypto market (including spot markets).
In the 2018 case CFTC v. My Big Coin, the judge ruled that the CFTC can regulate virtual assets as commodities even though they are intangible assets. This ruling is consistent with the CFTC's position that crypto assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are more similar to digital commodities than securities due to their decentralized and issuer-free nature.
In addition, the CFTC has taken enforcement actions against CEXs such as BitMEX and Binance, accusing them of providing crypto derivatives trading without registration, further consolidating the CFTC's regulatory role in this area.
For US crypto reserves, if the US government holds and trades crypto assets, commodity regulations may apply rather than securities regulations. This generally means less stringent regulatory requirements, but anti-fraud and anti-manipulation regulations are still required. If the Treasury Department actively manages crypto reserves (such as selling Bitcoin at an opportunistic time), it must ensure that market manipulation laws are not violated.
In addition, the classification of crypto assets as commodities also raises the question of regulatory authority - which agency is responsible for regulating the country's crypto reserves? This requires coordination between the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, and the CFTC.
It is worth noting that there are legislative proposals (such as the Lummis-Gillibrand Act) that attempt to clarify regulatory authority, which may bring most crypto assets under CFTC supervision and only classify some assets as securities.
4) Treasury Department/OFAC-Tornado Cash Sanctions (2022–2024)
The main function of the U.S. Treasury Department in the crypto field is to combat illegal financial activities. In August 2022, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) first added Tornado Cash (a decentralized cryptocurrency mixing protocol) to the sanctions list and added its smart contract address to the blacklist. OFAC accused Tornado Cash of being used to launder more than $7 billion in crypto assets, including funds stolen by North Korean hackers, and prohibited U.S. citizens from trading with addresses related to the protocol.
However, at the end of 2024, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals overturned the sanctions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that OFAC exceeded its authority because Tornado Cash's open source smart contracts could not be considered "property" or legally sanctionable. The court pointed out that the unchangeable software code is neither an organization nor an individual, which reflects the contradiction between the traditional legal framework and the development of decentralized technology.
This case has far-reaching implications for the government's crypto management policy because it reveals the legal dilemma of regulators when facing decentralized networks. For the US crypto reserve, although Tornado Cash itself will not become a reserve asset, the case shows that the government must carefully consider when managing crypto assets:
· What digital assets does the government actually control?
· Can smart contracts (codes) be "held" like traditional assets?
In addition, any use of crypto reserves must comply with sanctions and related regulations (AML). For example, the Treasury Department needs to establish a strict compliance mechanism to prevent transactions with sanctioned addresses or entities.
The Tornado Cash case ultimately exposed that the current law has lagged behind the development of decentralized technology, and legislative updates are imminent. As Judge Willett pointed out, this is a problem that Congress needs to address and may be carried out in parallel with the legislative process of establishing a national crypto reserve.
5) Administrative Action and Regulatory Framework
The regulatory environment for crypto is also affected by the executive branch. In March 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order 14067 (EO 14067) "Ensuring the Responsible Development of Digital Assets", requiring federal agencies to study the risks and opportunities of crypto assets. The order outlines policy goals, including consumer protection, financial stability, combating illegal finance, enhancing U.S. competitiveness, and exploring central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Although the executive order did not create new laws, it led to a series of reports and recommendations at the end of 2022 and marked the federal government's recognition that crypto assets have become a long-term part of the financial system. Notably, the executive order promoted research on digital dollars (CBDCs) at the time.
However, in January 2025, President Trump issued a new executive order "Strengthening U.S. Leadership in Digital Financial Technologies", revoking Biden's executive order and taking a completely different policy stance: the Trump administration firmly opposed the launch of a U.S. central bank digital currency (CBDC) on the grounds that it could threaten personal freedom and privacy.
Instead, the order explicitly supports privately issued U.S. dollar stablecoins and blockchain technology innovation.
Most importantly, Trump's executive order established a working group to develop a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and assess the feasibility of establishing a national digital asset reserve. The working group was asked to submit a report on how to implement a national crypto reserve within 180 days (i.e. mid-2025).
But how exactly to implement a national crypto reserve? In fact, any implementation plan may involve the use of existing legal authorizations or require Congress to pass new legislation. Possible avenues include:
A. Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)
The fund was historically used to hold foreign exchange and gold for exchange rate intervention, and its authorization may be expanded to include crypto assets through congressional approval or broad interpretation.
B. Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is responsible for managing the United States' gold and foreign exchange reserves and coordinates with the Treasury Department. However, the Federal Reserve Act limits the Fed's asset purchases to government securities. Unless Congress amends the law, it remains unclear whether crypto assets can be included in the Fed's balance sheet.
C. Strategic cooperation between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve
The two need to work together to manage cryptocurrency reserves, similar to their coordination mechanism for debt management and foreign exchange reserves.
In addition, there have been proposals for "decentralized vaults" that suggest that the Treasury Department manage the national cryptocurrency reserves to ensure that the government controls private keys while providing transparency to the public.
Overall, U.S. cryptocurrency regulation is still in dynamic adjustment. The recent court victories of the crypto industry (Ripple case, Coinbase petition in the Third Circuit Court, Tornado Cash case), as well as the policy shift of the executive branch, indicate that the United States is moving towards a more relaxed regulatory environment.
However, there are still major legal issues unresolved, including: the classification of different tokens (commodities vs. securities), the legal basis for the government to acquire and hold crypto assets (which may require congressional appropriations or reinterpretation of the law), how to develop regulatory mechanisms to prevent abuse or mismanagement, etc.
4 Comparative Analysis: Cryptocurrency Reserves vs. Gold and Fiat Currency Reserves
The United States' strategic cryptocurrency reserves will become an unprecedented addition to the national asset system, and there are key differences from traditional gold reserves or fiat currency reserves:
1) Comparison of the supply mechanisms of gold, fiat currency and cryptocurrency
Gold: Stable supply, clear ownership
The supply of gold mainly depends on mining, and it grows by about 1-2% each year. The total amount of gold mined in the world is about 208,000 tons, of which: central banks hold about 35,000 tons as financial reserves.
The physical properties of gold allow governments to choose to store it in their own country (such as the US "Fort Knox") or in trusted foreign vaults, with clear ownership.
Fiat currency reserves: dependence on central bank policies
Fiat currency reserves (such as the US dollar and the euro) are issued by foreign central banks, and holding these currencies means relying on the monetary policy of the issuing central bank. For example: holding US dollars means trusting that the Federal Reserve will not over-issue US dollars to prevent depreciation.
Fiat currencies can be exchanged through foreign exchange market transactions or diplomatic agreements between central banks, and are not directly affected by market supply and demand.
Cryptocurrency: Fixed total amount, decentralized operation
Crypto assets are supplied in a completely different way, and their supply is not controlled by central banks or governments: the total supply of Bitcoin is fixed (21 million), and is gradually released according to a schedule set by an algorithm, rather than determined by a central agency.
No government or central bank can change the issuance policy of Bitcoin, which makes it more attractive to those who are worried about the devaluation of fiat currency.
However, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin means that no government can "control" its network. Even if a country holds a large number of Bitcoins, it cannot change its monetary rules or functions.
2) Gold vs. Bitcoin: Differences in the influence of monetary policy
The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is in stark contrast to the monetary system of the gold standard era:
Golden Age: The US government can adjust the price of gold or suspend gold redemption (such as the "Nixon Shock" in 1971) to directly influence monetary policy.
Bitcoin era: Its rules are determined by global network consensus, and the government has no right to unilaterally modify them, regardless of how much is held.
In addition, the United States must compete with other investors in the open market to buy Bitcoin, and large-scale government acquisitions may cause market prices to rise, putting itself at a disadvantage.
3) Volatility and Risk
Gold has demonstrated more stable value over the long term than fiat currencies—its price generally rises during periods of inflation, but with far less volatility than crypto assets. Gold’s annual price fluctuations are typically between 10–20%, while crypto assets can fluctuate by 10–20% in a single day and have experienced extreme bull and bear cycles. For example:
Bitcoin surged from about $10,000 in 2020 to $69,000 by the end of 2021;
Plummeted to $16,000 by the end of 2022;
Rebounded to over $60,000 in 2024.
This volatility is an order of magnitude higher than the price fluctuations of most fiat currencies or gold. Therefore, crypto asset reserves will significantly increase the volatility of government balance sheets.
Under mark-to-market accounting, governments’ quarterly book gains or losses can fluctuate dramatically, which can be politically controversial. No country wants to see the value of its foreign exchange reserves fluctuate wildly.
The US gold reserves are so large (worth nearly $500 billion) that if the Treasury sells a large portion of them, it could affect the global gold market. Therefore, central banks usually coordinate sales or take a gradual approach to sell off to avoid market shocks.
For fiat currency reserves (such as the US dollar and the euro), the scale of holdings by countries often reaches hundreds of billions, and these foreign exchange reserves are managed very carefully to avoid disrupting the foreign exchange market.
In contrast, although the crypto market is growing, it is still small and highly fragmented compared to the traditional foreign exchange market. As of early 2025, the total market value of the cryptocurrency market is about $2.7-3 trillion, which is about a quarter of the size of the global gold market and much smaller than the global stock or bond market.
If the US government implements a large-scale purchase plan (tens of billions of dollars), it may significantly increase the price of cryptocurrencies - in fact, the announcement of the plan alone has caused the price of Bitcoin to rise by more than 10%.
This leads to the question of "execution risk". To avoid large market fluctuations, the US government may need to adopt the following methods to purchase cryptocurrencies:
Purchase in stages and covertly to obtain a reasonable purchase price;
Trade with large holders through OTC (over-the-counter) methods to avoid pushing up market prices.
On the contrary, in times of crisis, if the government needs to quickly sell crypto assets in exchange for legal currency, this behavior may cause the price of crypto assets to collapse.
In addition, there is the problem of "liquidity under stress":
For example, when global market liquidity dried up in March 2020, the price of Bitcoin fell by half in a few days, while gold and US Treasury bonds proved their liquidity advantages as safe assets.
Although the cryptocurrency market has matured a lot since then, its resilience in a real global macro-financial crisis has not been fully verified.
Therefore, although crypto assets are extremely liquid under normal market conditions (traded 24/7 worldwide), there is still uncertainty as to whether they can serve as reliable reserve assets during financial turmoil.
4) Custody and security
Storing gold in a vault is costly (security, insurance, auditing) but relatively simple. Holding fiat currency reserves relies primarily on the records of a central bank or custodian bank, with little risk of theft. However, holding cryptocurrencies presents unique cybersecurity challenges.
Ownership of crypto asset reserves is effectively dependent on control of the cryptographic private keys.
Once a hack or internal threat occurs, it may lead to irreversible loss of funds, which is not a corresponding risk in gold and fiat currency reserves (gold and fiat currency will not be stolen or destroyed on a large scale due to hacking unless physical damage is involved).
Therefore, the US government needs state-of-the-art cold storage solutions, multi-layer key management systems (possibly using multi-signature wallets to distribute keys to multiple trusted institutions or officials), and perhaps even the development of dedicated hardware modules to ensure the security of the country's cryptocurrency reserves.
Currently, there are limited precedents in this area: some small countries and private institutions have tried to manage large-scale crypto asset custody; but at the same time, the crypto industry has also experienced notorious hacking incidents, such as the 2014 Mt. Gox hack, which lost 850,000 bitcoins.
If the US crypto reserves fail to be custodied - even a small-scale hacking incident - it could seriously damage market confidence, so this risk cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, the transparency of blockchain provides a new accountability mechanism. For example, the US government can follow El Salvador's example and disclose the blockchain address of the reserves, allowing the public to verify the existence of national crypto assets in real time. This transparency is much higher than gold reserves (the latter need to rely on audit reports, while the data on the blockchain can be queried in real time).
5) Income generation
Gold is a "non-yielding" asset that does not generate interest unless it is borrowed.
Fiat currency reserves can earn moderate interest by investing in safe bonds or deposits.
Crypto assets bring new income possibilities.
For example, the US government can earn income by staking or borrowing certain crypto assets: holding ETH or ADA can participate in the Proof of Stake (PoS) network and earn protocol rewards.
But doing so may raise additional legal issues:
Does government participation in blockchain verification involve commercial activities?
Does this affect the regulatory classification of crypto assets?
In addition, if the government chooses to earn income through borrowing, it also involves counterparty risk. These activities blur the line between passive reserve assets and actively managed sovereign wealth funds.
Given the current regulatory uncertainty, the most prudent approach may be: do not seek income in the early stage, but simply regard cryptocurrencies as reserve assets and adopt a "buy & hold" strategy.
In general, crypto asset reserves have the same risk hedging function as gold (its value is independent of the policies of other countries), but in comparison, they are more volatile and more technically complex.
Unlike fiat currency reserves, crypto assets do not represent claims on other economies, which has both advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages: No credit risk (not affected by the policies of other central banks like foreign exchange reserves).
Disadvantages: Lack of traditional international cooperation mechanisms (for example, it is impossible to support allies through currency swaps like foreign exchange reserves).
Crypto assets are unique in that they are decentralized and digital, and are both censorship-resistant (not frozen by foreign issuers) and face cybersecurity threats (hacker attacks) and uncertain regulatory risks. The U.S. government must weigh these pros and cons.
5 Summary: Towards a New Financial Frontier
The establishment of crypto asset reserves in the United States marks a critical moment in financial history, when traditional asset reserves and the digital age officially intersect. Supporters believe that this move can hedge inflation, enhance financial resilience, and serve as a strategic tool to ensure the United States' global leadership in the field of crypto finance. However, critics warn that market volatility, legal uncertainty, and risks that may affect the dominance of the US dollar cannot be ignored.
The success of this plan depends on precise execution, a clear regulatory framework, and strong cybersecurity measures to avoid potential pitfalls and ensure its long-term viability. How the United States manages this transition will provide important reference for other countries and institutions, influencing their own crypto asset strategies.
In addition to direct economic and legal considerations, deeper questions remain:
Will this reserve strengthen or weaken the global status of the US dollar?
Will its establishment trigger a global digital asset competition or even give rise to new financial games?
As crypto assets are gradually integrated into national reserves, does this mean that the government-level decentralized finance (DeFi) transformation is about to begin?
As the United States explores this new path, the global financial landscape will also be reshaped. The answers to these questions will affect the monetary system, market evolution, and the distribution of global economic power.
