The claim that the U.S. holding Bitcoin is about maintaining influence, not just hedging, relies on speculative assumptions. While some argue that a national Bitcoin reserve could "influence global crypto adoption" (Duane Morris LLP), others note the U.S. cannot control Bitcoin as it does the dollar, given its decentralized nature (JD Supra). The idea hinges on Bitcoin’s role as a "store of value" (Chainalysis), but this ignores its volatility and lack of intrinsic value compared to traditional reserves.

Critics, like the Cato Institute, argue Bitcoin might actually reinforce the dollar’s dominance by offering a hedge against fiat instability, not replace it. Meanwhile, discussions about a "strategic reserve" often conflate theoretical possibilities with unproven outcomes. For instance, Trump’s 2020 executive order mentioned Bitcoin acquisition, but no concrete steps were taken (Bankrate).

Is Bitcoin truly a tool for geopolitical influence, or is this a case of conflating digital innovation with traditional power dynamics? How might decentralized networks like Bitcoin interact with state control?

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/64a357cd5249da07aec14773fc5f68588eddd70aa13d2464ac2406a24f25e049