Topic: Everything you wanted to know about Bitcoin Strategic Reserve. (Read 1443 times)

Some states, some countries, and some public companies are currently opting for Bitcoin as a strategic reserve. Those companies are accepting payments through Bitcoin. Maybe this news will help to have a positive impact on the Bitcoin market. We have seen that there are many public companies in the world who are already investing in Bitcoin, among them are Microstrategy, Riot, Hut8 and many others. Currently another public company Heritage Distilling has adopted bitcoin reserves.

The part Trump has played in his presidency has always given people a reason to see him for his words most times than others. Especially for Bitcoin investors given his outspokenness for the currency/industry. It would almost make anyone believe that, he would stick by a NO CBDC course but, I don’t see how he would fight his own currency and replace it with what?

There is where I would have to believe that all it takes for politicians is to undo a statement in the past with another statement.

He obviously can’t afford to be a dictator, that’s not happening in the US no.

It is now a competition in the US as states are introducing bills that will allow them invest in bitcoin with state funds. Every government in states and some countries have seen bitcoin to be a good asset and have chosen to use it as their reserve. This meana that if it continues like this and many countries have bitcoin reserve, the price will be very expensive and the poor hodlers can transform their future with their bitcoin investment.

Trump is not the ONLY one calling the shots, and sure maybe he (or some of the folks in his sphere making decisions and creating priorities) might be able to strike various proper balances, yet even with various government behaviors to co-opt various stable coins (even USDT), there can develop more and more ways in which those fuck twats are spying on, controlling and even limiting transactability.. so in that sense, dezoel is correct to be skeptical, even though he was a bit lame in terms of how lacking he was in the backing up of his skepticisms.

I think that we have to continue to attempt to be vigilant in regards to whatever various politicians do and what some of their actions (even when they are claiming their actions to be a good thing), especially since Trump and some of the other diptwats such as Elon, talk out of both sides of their mouth and they don't exactly have very good track records in regards to their own conduct - various  ways that Trump has used and abused debt and failed refused to follow laws based on his own selfishness, greed and gangster mentality, and Elon seems to never have had seen a government subsidy that he doesn't like, including his being a bit childish in his own behaviors whether in relation to Doggie coin or some of his other time motivations to appear as if he is the smartest one in the room (which might or might not even be true).

By the way, it could be helpful that a couple of Trump's kids seem to be helping to guide some of the understandings in regards to how bitcoin differs from shitcoins, we might still need to question the extent to which some compromises might end up coming in regards to how bitcoin might balance out with various shitcoins, stable coins, meme coins and including if there might be some CBDC type elements that are getting included in the various ways that we are able to interact or if there  are going to be allowed to be developments of privacy and direct transactions without having a bunch of traceable elements (and backdoors) that are difficult for many of us to figure out the various ways that our financial privacy and self-sovereignty is being compromised.  I am probably rambling too since I don't claim to really know how various backdoors are created and/or that we are able to operate without having to be overly surveilled and potentially controlled at some later date because of our transaction history that we might not have realized was present or maybe even in some circumstances the information about our transaction history is not even correct, but the surveillance tools are still being used to lock up normies in selective ways that can sometimes be difficult to figure out... .yeah, let out Ross is a good sign.. maybe drop the tornado cash case.. .. perhaps drop the Samarai case too.. perhaps incentivize phoenix to come back to the USA.. and other developers who have become worried about various levels of draconianism.. perhaps allow some of the earlier closed banks to open back up.. since they were clearly targeted based on their "crypto system".. perhaps intervene to make sure that Caitlin Long gets a banking license.. .. I don't know about everything, but there could be some steps that provide assurances that back doors are not as likely to happen in the coming 4 years.. and maybe even setting up systems that give assurance that it can last beyond 4 years. ..

Trump said many times that the US will never have a CBDC.
Of course, it's only a politician's promise, but it's an easy one to maintain.
In case he set up a CBDC or hints so, there will probably be an unwind on more difficult ones, like the institution of a BSR.
 

For sure, there can be quite a bit of devil in various details, and sometimes, if a leader describes how things are going to get done, they might be missing some of the nuance in regards to various obstacles, such as actual ownership, disputes about ownership or even how due process might play out whether there are civil claims over the coins or criminal claims, and public entities tend to have responsibilities and requirements, even if some strong leader (or strong leader wannabe) comes in and strives to streamline various public processes that even continue to exist in the USA and are going to be giving Trump push back on several of the things that he says that he is going to do or that he is wanting to do.

There have also been a lot of complaints in regards to USA executives (referring to the presidency) gaining more and more power, and some of the recent supreme court rulings seem to also had ruled in a direction that Trump will probably work towards exploiting, not like he is the kind of guy who like boundaries, which probably was part of the reason that he was elected since some of the boundaries of the other side were seeming to have their own freedom impinging inclinations.


I am not going to claim to be an expert in regards to the authority that the president has in connection with each of the agencies, since there are various kinds of agencies, and some of them are more subjected to executive orders and whims and others are not, so it is not automatic that presidents can do whatever they like, even if there is an executive agency involved in the process, and surely which agency holds the coins can make differences in regards to the process involved, and perhaps if the BTC were already held by the US treasury, then that would be different than if they are held by the department of justice or the US Marshalls, and even if there is a process in place for how to deal with various kinds of property, property rights are frequently described by states rather than the federal government, so there could be differences in regards to how the coins were seized in the first place and if there might be some state property issues involved, and of course, courts will rule on various disputes about property rights too, which they could be overruled...

oh yeah and sometimes there could be interagency courts that have to be exhausted prior to those inter-agencies being subject to appeal in federal courts, and yeah there sometimes could be ways that processes are skipped, so it is not always going to be clear about which coins are disputed and where they are disputed and what have been the past rulings and are those ruling subject to appeal (or cancelation of the process in the case of some kinds of things that executives might be able to do), and sometimes if there might be a change in the rule about how an agency treats property, there might be a need to propose such rule in the federal registry, which allows for a public comment period, and sure agencies will sometimes try to skirt those kinds of requirements, which is one of the ways that the SEC had been criticized recently in regards to it making up its own rules but not going through public processes.

CBDC is definitely the way they are planning to go with, and having CBDC backed by the bitcoin holding they have, could cause them to have their cake and eat it too. That will allow them to raise more capital, and they could even use it as asset to get more debt as well.

This is why I never trust governments and I am sure they will figure out a way to make this bad as well, not sure how they will turn this to be a bad thing, because bitcoin is great and I love bitcoin and I would love it if any nation ends up buying bitcoin for a reserve, but even though the news itself sounds great, I am still fearing what it may cause in the future. Like I said, I have no idea how this could hurt us, can't see or predict it yet, and yes it looks great so far, but just because I have no idea how this will turn around and bite us in the a--, doesn't mean that I do not think it won't happen, I am sure that it will happen, I just don't know when and how.

El Salvador bought 11 bitcoins again yesterday. We saw on Twitter that El Salvador bought 11 Bitcoins on December 20th and December 22nd which means they bought 11 Bitcoins three times in total. After the US government sold their seized bitcoins, the price of bitcoins fell, at the moment the price of bitcoins is still lower. Perhaps El Salvador took the opportunity to buy more bitcoins with the opportunity of a market dip. Their total Bitcoin holdings at the moment are 6,023.

---

New Hampshire recently introduced a bill to create a bitcoin reserve.

I guess that agencies ARE the Trump administration, and if they are ordered to hand over the seized funds to a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve agency", they have little to do against it.
I am unfamiliar with that part of the legislation, but the agencies don't "own" the bitcoins. Otherwise, they wouldn't need a judge to authorise them to sell the funds trough the US Marshalls.

Isn't there a claim of ownership by the agency that confiscated the money? I'm not sure how much of this applies to this case:
I can imagine some agency doesn't want to hand over those Bitcoins to the Trump administration, if they can claim a large part of it for themselves. But again: I don't know if this applies to this case.

Dumping the coins to force a sell off then buying back more at the new lows to realize a profit on foreseen BTC accumulation would resemble the OJ futures scene from Trading Places.  Chaos but funny I guess and price is not the greatest thing to worry about, its only a label for approximated value on that day.


A remember a motion to take the Swiss back to the gold standard, they were the last to leave it.  The country or at least its withheld assets would have been much richer had they done so at that time.  Generally central banks on purpose are constantly devaluing common currency that the workers are paid in, making people poorer and labor cheaper is not accidental and it benefits the richest of those countries.

To say I dont believe a leopard will change its spots is a slight understatement on this or any similar idea.

On December 30, a Judge cleared the DoJ to sell 69K bitcoins:



Luckily, according to Arkham, the sale wasn't carried out.
But as DB states, it would have been at least inconvenient if the current administration sold such a large chunk of the government holdings just weeks before Trump's inauguration.

I don't write much outside the Italian forum, but I follow and read
for example the question of the Lummis law would shatter all my predictions and those of others
let's say it would be a good step, or rather a leap forward

it would also be the most logical choice, if politicians had logic

This is a great thread with lots of ideas.. ty fillippone

This smells of Zimbabwe Dollar from one hundred miles away.

---

Lastest addition to the BSR bunch:

Czech National Bank weighs bitcoin purchases for potential reserve asset diversification


This seems a "just because" scenario. Adding a few bitcoin to the balance sheets is incredible for a European Central Bank.
Only a few bitcoins, I would say, are almost irrelevant in the balance sheet of a central bank, yet the signalling power would be gigantic.

I bet they're already figuring out a way to replace it with some sort of paper money, like they did with gold. Or maybe a bit more modern, in the form of CBDC backed by Bitcoin. Until they decide to inflate it away.
I'm not handing over my coins.

The SNB is a sui generis Central Bank. Given the buying pressure on CHF, they are actually hedge funds. Everyone wants CHF, so they print it out of thin air, and with the proceeds, they buy real assets, namely gold and equities ( they own MSTR as well).
Anyway I don’t like CB, now that they buy Bitcoin. I am happy they are slowly realising what Bitcoin is.

I like this part:
Anyone else is wary about central banks. I realized this years ago: if governments and central banks are against something, it's most likely something I'm going to like

The last nation-state looking for an SBR is Switzerland:

Swiss central bank faces call to hold bitcoin in reserves

A group of crypto supporters now has 18 months to gather 100,000 signatures to promote a referendum on the possibility for the SNB holding BTC as a reserve.

It's interesting to notice that El Salvador sped up their Bitcoin buying after the IMF granted them a few extra funds:




On Dec 20 and Dec 22, they bought 11 BTC in addition to the usual 1 BTC daily.

I don't know if they will keep buying these additional 11 BTC, but surely it is trolling at its best.

That's actually a good question. Probably they buy every day, just like El Salvador. The difference is in the size, though. El Salvador buys around 1 BTC per day. If the Bitcoin act passes, they will be buying more than 500 BTC per day. That could easily cause a supply shock at some point.

In the world we live in, a couple of families own around half of the world's wealth. It's not a Nirvana world, unfortunately, but this is what we have.