David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it's an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.
First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as "a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold."
As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a "store-of-value asset", but a money for payment and day to day purchases.
Defining Bitcoin as a "store-of-value asset" reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example).
With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US' definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.
The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall's Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.
This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.
While I'm no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis' proposed Bitcoin Act.
To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn't a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.
No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy.
Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.
Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.
Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it.
