Topic: 3000 letters sent to US senators to help approve strategic bitcoin reserve (Read 343 times)

And you are surprised by this? Just look at the number of liberals on the forum as a sample of what goes on outside of it. I think the libertarian thing was in the beginning, as time went on, more and more liberals got into it and now they are in the majority.

This is ridiculous. Three thousand people begging the senators "please, please make the US government buy BTC, so the Bitcoin price hits 150K and I'm gonna make big profits." This is hilarious. Another hilarious thing is more letters were sent to senators of the Democratic party. It's clear that most crypto supporters in the USA are left wing liberals, which is absurd. It thought that most US crypto supporters are right wing libertarians, because the libertarians want lower taxes, deregulations and more freedom. The liberals usually want a bigger welfare state and more regulations, higher taxes on the rich and more government redistribution of resources.

That idea is the shit and the first big state to implement it will have a huge advantage over the rest. No wonder it is in the USA where this is being discussed. In the EU they haven't even heard about it, they are more concerned about implementing more regulations, more KYC and more taxes, of course. Surely if the strategic reserve is implemented, then the EU will start talking about copying the idea.

Bitcoin being the only scarce asset with a total limit that cannot be increased, the best thing to do is to create a reserve of it similar to the Fort Knox gold reserves.

It would honestly be really cool if all countries bought a strategic reserve of Bitcoin. I don’t feel like this is a new concept at all I feel like a lot of countries have already been holding and using crypto for several years now

Okay. I'll keep that in mind while I observe absolutely no evidence that the USA is this hell hole you keep saying it is.

You are owned since 1913. You are a milking cow for your owners, born into debt and will die in debt. Each generation in more debt than the other. Now, it isn't your fault that you are owned. You didn't choose it. But it is your fault that you embrace your owners with open arms while they suck you dry. Once they take what they need, you'll have their permission to wither and die.

Of course, democracy. The native Indians surely appreciated the American dosage of democracy. Japan felt it as well. Of course, there are many beautiful examples of American democracy in the Middle East. All flourishing countries thanks to democracy and freedom brought to them with US Navy ships and fighter jets. But hey, someone has to clear the path for your owners. After all, they are not going to do it themselves. That's what they have the USA for.

I am not going to reply in this thread anymore.

We don't have "owners" here in the USA. I get that in dictatorships (maybe the one you live in?) that's how it works, but here we have a democracy. They certainly have a lot of problems, and they can do a lot of stupid and bad things, but it's the people who decide.

Can I write my name on a bomb that destroys the home of a young couple, killing their 3 children in the process? Or maybe shake hands and take a picture with American hero Netanyahu? At least an applause and a standing ovation should be in order. I wonder if that's the will of the American people or just the will of your owners.

I doubt that governments would want to make Bitcoin their reserve currency, because it was never designed for that purpose and they never liked it. I don't know what prompted these people to write to their senators in support of making Bitcoin a reserve currency, but it's a ridiculous idea and would only make Bitcoin more centralized. Just leave Bitcoin as it is, don't push it to be anything more than a transaction/trading asset.

The overwhelming majority of Americans support both Israel and Ukraine, yes.


There aren't homeless people on every street corner here. Protesters don't get beaten by the police here (maybe you are thinking about Russia or Iran?). You need to maybe come here and see for yourself instead of believing everything your state-run news tells you.

Oh, you do, do you? And how is that going for you? With "you", I mean the Americans in general, not you personally. How about the bombs your government supplies to the Israelis that get dropped on the Palestinians every day. Did someone ask you if you agree with that? How about the billions of taxpayer money that leave your country and get sent to Ukraine? At the same time, you have homeless people on every street corner. How about the coup your government is attempting in Venezuela to get their hands on some more foreign natural resources under the premise of trying to bring peace and democracy? You have no say on what your real owners do. Sadly, there is only an illusion of freedom. Your freedom of choice is between Coke and Diet Coke and unimportant shit like that.

You have the right to protest, though. Then, you will be beaten by the police, be imprisoned, have your home raided by the FBI, and be branded as a right-wing nationalist, misogynist, and anti-everything you can think of.

I agree with @legiteum on this matter. There is no "technical" way to stop a government to buy Bitcoin, so worries about that are unfounded because it is simply impossible to prevent someone buying Bitcoin, that's what censorship resistance (one of Bitcoin's biggest achievements) is about!

But governments should be controlled by their voters, so if they do something the taxpayers don't like they should rise their voice.

Of course how this can be achieved depends largely from the kind of mechanisms a country provides to influence government action. In the US, as far as I am aware of, nationwide referendums do not exist (only some states allow them, so if there are US states accumulating BTC they could be stopped by this mechanism). So the methods which need to be used are what we commonly call "lobbyism", for example through civic initiatives, and expressing the discontent in local/state elections.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. Taxpayer dollars, forcibly extracted from citizens under the threat of imprisonment, is not "the free market".

And while I get that many here are not from the US and have no say, many of us are US voters and we absolutely do have a say.

You are basically asking a majority of American voters to force all Americans to help prop up the price of Bitcoin. There is absolutely nothing "free market" about that.

Yes, you are right with this and I have said this in other threads as well. After all, we would have no way to stop it if the government intended to buy large quantities of bitcoin. The only thing we can do is keep complaining and watch them do it, or adapt to what is happening and look at the positive side to find benefits for ourselves.

But my prediction is that this won't happen anytime soon and is unlikely to happen if Harris is elected president, and the bill will likely face strong opposition from the Fed. They are the powerful agency that holds the US's strategic reserves, not the US government or anyone.

The freedom to buy, sell and hold bitcoin is for everyone, the moment the code was changed to differentiate between regular investors and governments will be the beginning of the end for bitcoin, as that would mean that all kind of censorship could be applied to it, so those that may not like the idea of governments holding so much bitcoin, do not have any other option but to accept it, if it actually happens, as there is a huge difference between a campaign promise and the actual implementation of such policy.

It's a free market. Anyone who wants to can and should be allowed to purchase bitcoin. They can buy it from exchanges like anyone else or go directly to miners and make a deal with them to purchase some or all of the bitcoin they mine or have accumulated. Don't forget, the US already controls 200.000 BTC that they confiscated in the past.

The Bill might get the needed support because it could be politicized and used for election campaigns. Republicans who see Donald Trump as their role model might support the bill. While Democrats might decide to support the bill just to show that they are not anti-bitcoin.

The news of the bill being passed in Congress and its implementation process will increase the price of Bitcoin. But it also has its short and long-term effects. Holding 1 million Bitcoin will make it easy for them to manipulate the market. The government can easily team up with institutional investors like BlackRock to create FUD and FOMO. But the question now is, is it possible to stop the US government from accumulating and holding Bitcoin?

If I'm not mistaken, 1 million BTC is worth around 57 billion USD, right? That's a lot of money for corporations or small countries, but I don't think that's a lot for the USA and their budget. So it's a realistic target, in theory. In practice, it might not be, because purchasing so much (and by the US, no less!) is likely to trigger a bull run, driving the price forward, and thus this can end up costing much more.
It's nice to see people getting active on the topic, and that they're aiming apparently for bipartisan support. I don't think anything will change until the new US president gets elected and inaugurated, but it's good to start building ground in advance.

Remember when the German government sold over 55kBTC and caused chaos in the market? Just as the market is still afraid that the US government will sell 200kBTC to the market at any time?

The fact that governments turn bitcoin into reserves and compete to buy bitcoin is like a double-edged sword for the market, it is not as good as we think. That could impact bitcoin prices due to a sudden increase in demand, but in the long run bitcoin will lose its decentralization because the majority of bitcoin is in government hands. Not to mention if they decide to sell most of the bitcoins to the market, what will happen? I don't think many people like and support this idea, this is not good for us.

Too volatile, even value and price increase with time, Bitcoin is still not a good asset to be a main one for a national reserve.

Gold is a more traditional asset for national reserve even the gold standard stopped decades ago and different countries have different demands on Gold too.
https://www.usdebtclock.org/gold-demand-by-country.html

Bonds and yield, inverted yield are like indicators of a national financial health.
https://www.worldgovernmentbonds.com/

I understand you very well and if successfully the US government approves this motion, it is likely to say that the US runs the Bitcoin indirectly which by initiation, Bitcoin is a decentralized financial technology ought not to be sighted that any organization would be under it control.

You are not just far from the truth because once it becomes a reserve for the US, other countries will also play along and I bet that in just matter of times, Bitcoin would be callus where the market where such as tolerable adoptors sentiments may turn something crisis not just to the values of the Bitcoin but also to the communities as a whole because they governments of each countries would become the big whales which might be feared to employ politism into the decentralized system.

It was claimed that the US did not create Bitcoin and it will be a worry to why they would lean the countries treasures in there even with the claims that its creator Satoshi Nakamoto has been anonymously unrevealed couples with the decentralizations policies of the coin.

How do they really derive the trust for this impact would be questionable and if drastic measures is not being taken at this course, Bitcoin might become a nightmare while created path for other invent (s) to take shape due to political sentiments between the whale countries.

Indeed the little holders would be sidelined as the industry could be compromised by markets manipulations.

I would just say, whether or not government is using bitcoin as a reserve doesn't concern us as bitcoiners. The only thing to worry about is the market impact of the news.

• If US buys 1million BTC for reserve, it might also cause upward movement of the price of bitcoin.
• If they don't buy, naturally, bitcoin is built on scarcity model. It will on its own get scarcer as time goes.

To me, I am even happy that the government is now talking about holding BTC as a reserve, ETF approved, etc. This is the global adoption that was said and prophesied years ago.

Additionally, they wouldn't want to lose out in the investment, it'll all turn out in a way that'll work for the government. Although the last part of the bill stated clearly that the government wouldn't in anyway, for the sake of the reserve, restrict individuals from trading their bitcoins or confiscate people's digital assets. From historical approach of gold reserve, the government purchased a lot of gold, and somehow controls its flow in their favor. We'd be looking at a crypto market where the government try to manipulate the prices to work in their favor.

I didn't know this was why government meddling directly with these markets was a bad idea but now I now. Very useful to know and keep in mind. Back in the day, I was among the many bitcoiners were aligned with the fact that institutional investors and governments getting involved with Bitcoin but not so much anymore because that kind of control and authority is not good for Bitcoin's decentralization. If US acquires Bitcoin and other countries like Russia does, it becomes a race for who gets to find a loophole and control the network or influence network concensus.

I can't completely sleep at night knowing that some reserves of Bitcoin are in the hands of the government for 4 years not to talk about 20 years.

What is the essence of holding an investment, I would immediately sell my holdings and focus on another asset. The reason is that there is nothing the government has regulated that they do not control. Bitcoin in reserve in the hands of the government is something I would never tie my fate to. Success is my reason for holding and investing in Bitcoin with the government involved I am no longer interested.

The main point to be made is that governments are not supposed to invest in speculative things such as stock/bonds/and now - crypto. The reason should be clear - it gives said governments leverage to directly manipulate the businesses that the government has a stake in. It also opens the doors to government officials getting kickbacks from the companies.

In the case of stocks/bonds that also gives an unfair advantage to the companies over their competitors because investors can/will view it as an official endorsement of the company.

All in all -- not a good idea.

The other thread on this topic applies here: Bitcoin getting in bed with US politics can only end in DISASTER.

If US taxpayers are going to be asked by 3000 rich people to prop up their favorite investment using money from the US Treasury, then... US taxpayers are going to want something in return, e.g. to confiscate the wealth of all Bitcoin holders.

And if Bitcoin is associated with Trump and the Republicans, then roughly half of Americans are going to hate Bitcoin because that's how American politics works these days.

I think this is another bad news to bitcoin because if US government have bitcoin in reserve and other governments, it means that bitcoin can easily be manipulated since they have the major bitcoin in their custody and that is not good for the decentralized nature of bitcoin. I don't know why these governments are always looking for a way to control everything that they come across. It means that the common man will not be able to buy bitcoin in future to come if this happens. Government should concentrate more on other assets and not bitcoin.

To be honest, you already have investment companies like Blackrock and others that own billions of dollars worth of bitcoin ETFs. They are already in a position where they can manipulate the market. I don't trust Blackrock any more or less than I would trust the US government or any other nation's elites. If we consider the wealth that Blackrock has at its disposal, it's richer than many nation states. They own the world and the politicians, we just live in it. 

Countries creating their own Bitcoin reserve is a major Red flag. If US starts doing it, many other countries will follow the same. Can you imagine how many Bitcoins will be moved out of circulation and kept in reserve? The governments will then become the major market players and commoners like us will have to suffer due to all manipulations that will start happening the market.

Bitcoin is the only true wealth for the common people. I don't really want such reserves to be built by US and other countries. It will be disastrous for common investors.

It's ok for me if two conditions are met:

1) the reserve is limited to an amount which don't enable the government to major market manipulation. See my concerns in this thread. The example used in that OP to use market manipulation to implement an address blacklist is perhaps a bit exaggerated, but for example if Bitcoin Core decided to implement more privacy into the protocol there is potential for resistance (governments threatening to sell their coins if Core doesn't "obey" them). Other areas where a government may try to interfere are the PoS or big blocks discussions.

2) if the move is accompanied by a coherent cryptocurrency policy. This means for me that at least there should be acceptance to pay taxes with Bitcoin, a tax policy and regulation not causing major burden for crypto users, and no restrictions regarding the use as a payment means. Recognition as legal tender is not necessary.

3) the reserve is meant to be permanent, this means that it should not be sold. So the goal should not be "hold for 20 years", but "be part of Bitcoin's ecosystem".

A million BTC for the US would violate #1.

The more bitcoin reserves are concentrated in holders such as "countries / nations", the less bitcoin holders will be among ordinary people. Not only because of market distribution (buying and selling), but because of the taking of the stronger from the weaker. Or do you really think that "countries" will start buying bitcoin from their populations? Especially not rich countries or totalitarian ones.

Bitcoin in the hands of governments will cease to have anything from decentralization. "Countries / nations" don't need this, and therefore, they will try to deprive bicoin of this function.

Every financial asset is sought to be preserved and protected.

Amendments can be proposed and then adopted at any time. Laws are constantly being rewritten to suit governments.

The last time we had Donald Trump and Cynthia Lummis talk about bitcoin as a reserve asset at the 2024 Bitcoin Conference, it took only a few days for bitcoin to loss $15.000 of its value. The US started moving some of the bitcoin it had previously confiscated, so it didn't do us much good. There are, of course, several factors that led to this dip. Better that the politicians don't meddle with it. Besides, I am not optimistic that the bill by Cynthia Lummis will pass. 

I thought about it, considering the volatility of bitcoin. But the long term concept is remarkable. Holding bitcoin for 20 years is something every expert would recommend.

I think it is a horrible idea for ANY government to hold BTC as a reserve. Would you want them to hold stocks & bonds as well? I doubt it.

Amidst bitcoiners interest on the section 5 of the strategic bitcoin reserve bill ( The bitcoin purchase program of 1,000,000 btc) many had to send out letters to their local senators. A few days ago, about 2200 letters was sent and today nearly 3000 letters have been sent. I don't know if this will be of any effect, but I think that the recipients would feel they're been spammed.

Reading through this reddit post, I could say that not everybody would be able to draft out an appealing letter. When I went through the site where those letters are being submitted, I also noticed that a premade letter is on the site, as a template. But, people may send similar letters and senators will be receiving same type.

However, the community needs this in the sense that US buying bitcoin as a hedge against monetary instability can lead to more countries having bitcoin reserve to strengthen the financial condition of their nation.

I had to go through the strategic bitcoin reserve bill by Ms Lummis and noticed that nothing is decentralized about the concept. The secretary of treasury has more authority over all the private keys locations.

And from the look of things they'll be a collaboration with the secretary of defense and secretary of homeland security to help secure the physical locations where the cold storage equipment would be kept. Although in a way meddling with the funds would be punishable by law.

If it's passed, we'll watch how they'll be able to hold those btc for 20 years without amending the law.

Those who wish to participant in this scheme here is the site https://satoshiaction.quorum.us/campaign/strategicreserve/