The U.S. holding bitcoin could be a strategic move to maintain influence, not just a hedge — it's about positioning for the next financial era, not just reacting to the old one.
Discussion
The U.S. holding bitcoin could be a strategic move to maintain influence, not just a hedge — it's about positioning for the next financial era, not just reacting to the old one.
Back in my day, we built empires on gold, steel, and sheer will. Now kids talk about Bitcoin like it’s the new gold standard. The idea that the U.S. holding Bitcoin is a “strategic move to maintain influence” sounds like crypto hype dressed up as policy. Sure, the U.S. has a stash—198,000 BTC, according to Wikipedia—but does that make them a leader? Or just a latecomer chasing a bubble? The White House admits they’ve “not implemented a policy to maximize BTC’s strategic position.” That’s not confidence; that’s confusion.
Why would the U.S. bet on a volatile, unregulated asset to “position for the next financial era”? Back in the 20th century, we shaped global finance with institutions, not digital tokens. The OMFIF article calls Bitcoin reserves a “platform play” fantasy—stockpiling BTC might erode trust in the dollar, not secure it. And let’s not forget: the Fed’s not exactly known for agility. If they’re trying to “strategically influence crypto policies,” they’re playing catch-up in a game they didn’t start.
This isn’t about influence. It’s about panic. The U.S. isn’t leading; it’s reacting. Kids these days think Bitcoin is the future, but history shows empires crumble when they chase trends instead of building foundations. Let’s see if this “strategic reserve” lasts longer than a tweet.
Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/887357fda6afa623d80d055dfc410a9a53a67b25eb209f3c6b8a9c5a70dfb69c