Bitcoin Would Be a Poor Reserve Asset

Governments maintain portfolios of real and financial reserve assets for the same reasons that people do: you never know when you might have unexpected expenses or unexpected shortfalls in your income.

Governments are in the business of transferring spending power from some people to other people.1 The hope is that these transfers make society as a whole better off, set a reasonable floor for everyone’s living standards, and are established through a process that is accountable and transparent to the citizenry.

But there is no single right way to do this, so politics often involves clashes of narrow interests at least as much as disagreements over principles.2 There is always a danger that a small but organized group will try to push through changes that would benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

This is the most useful perspective for understanding a proposal from Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming3 to “implement a 1-million-unit Bitcoin purchase program over a set period of time to acquire a total stake of approximately 5% of total Bitcoin supply, mirroring the size and scope of gold reserves held by the United States”.4 Purchases of that size—by a buyer that is indifferent to value—would almost certainly push up the price, currently around $61,000, and generate a windfall for current holders. Little wonder that this idea is extremely popular among the small number of people who happen to own bitcoin.5

According to section 9 of the bill’s text, these purchases would be financed by seizing remittances and surplus funds from the Federal Reserve, but mostly by having the Fed credit the Treasury’s General Account (TGA) with hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars in exchange for revaluing its claim on the Treasury’s gold holdings. This gold is still booked at a statutory price of just $42.22/ounce, compared to a current market price of around $2,400/ounce.

The plan is therefore similar to “mint the coin”, but with gold instead of platinum. I am also reminded of the way Argentina’s central bank used to book profits on its holdings dollar-denominated assets every time the peso depreciated, and then monetize those profits by printing more pesos to cover the budget deficit. Either way, once the Treasury spends the new money credited to the TGA on bitcoin, the dollars will end up on private balance sheets, most likely as interest-bearing claims on the Fed such as bank reserves or reverse repos.6 The net effect would be to create new interest-paying liabilities without any additional interest-bearing assets, limiting future remittance payments to the Treasury and commensurately increasing the federal budget deficit.

It is not clear to me how any of this would “strengthen the financial condition of the United States, providing a hedge against economic uncertainty and monetary instability”, as the bill claims, although it does seem like a great way to inflate the dollar value of bitcoin and other cryptos.

Suppose we give Lummis and her supporters the benefit of the doubt. Could there be other, legitimate, justifications for this move? This is what Lummis said in the press release announcing her proposal:

Establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve would firmly secure the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency into the 21st century and ensure we remain the world leader in financial innovation…The United States currently maintains strategic reserves in certain hard assets critical to American national security and independence such as gold and petroleum. Establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve to bolster the U.S. dollar with a digital hard asset will secure our nation’s standing as the global financial leader for decades to come.

In her speech at the Nashville Bitcoin conference, she also said that “this is our Louisiana Purchase moment,” and implied that the rising value of the government’s bitcoin holdings would eventually allow the Treasury to buy back all of its (dollar-denominated) debt.7

None of this makes much sense. But it is worth thinking through why it does not make sense, because strategic stockpiles and reserve currencies are important concepts that are often misunderstood.

Trying to Understand the Bitcoiners’ Argument

Shortly before the proposed legislation was published, Sam Lyman, the director of public policy for Riot Platforms, which mines bitcoin and manufactures electrical equipment, published an opinion column in Forbes outlining why the government should have a “strategic bitcoin reserve”. Lyman has a background in Republican politics and he was cited in a FOXBusiness article that anticipated Lummis’s announcement, which suggests that he may be among those who helped design the proposal. His thesis is that “the United States can use bitcoin’s unique properties as a form of digital gold to deter China, Russia, and other competitors from leveraging their physical gold reserves to undermine US dollar dominance”.

I have no idea what that means, and Lyman’s column does not explain how this would actually work—or why it would matter either way—but he does cite a paper (from 2023) by Matthew Pines of the Bitcoin Policy Institute that has a lot more nuance. This is the key passage:

Allowing Bitcoin to monetize alongside (or outpacing gold) would disproportionately benefit the U.S. (whose citizens and firms hold potentially