比特幣將是一種糟糕的儲備資產

政府維持實際和金融儲備資產投資組合的原因與人們相同：你永遠不知道什麼時候可能會出現意外支出或收入意外短缺。

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.

政府的職責是將消費能力從某些人轉移到其他人。建立。

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.

但沒有單一的正確方法可以做到這一點，因此政治常常涉及狹隘利益的衝突，至少與原則上的分歧一樣多。有利的變革以犧牲其他人為代價。

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

這是理解懷俄明州參議員辛西婭·盧米斯(Cynthia Lummis)3 的提案的最有用的視角，該提案「在規定的時間內實施100 萬單位的比特幣購買計劃，以收購比特幣總供應量約5% 的總股份，反映了美國持有的黃金儲備的規模和範圍」。4 購買如此規模的黃金（由對價值漠不關心的買家購買）幾乎肯定會推高金價（目前約為61,000 美元） ，並為現任持有者帶來意外之財。難怪這個想法在少數擁有比特幣的人中非常受歡迎。

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.

根據該法案文本第9節，這些購買將透過扣押聯準會的匯款和盈餘資金來提供資金，但主要是透過讓聯準會將數千億美元記入財政部普通帳戶（TGA），以換取人民幣升值它對財政部所持有的黃金的索取權。該黃金仍以 42.22 美元/盎司的法定價格預訂，而當前市場價格約為 2,400 美元/盎司。

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.

因此，該計劃類似於“鑄造硬幣”，但用的是黃金而不是鉑金。我還記得每次比索貶值時，阿根廷央行都會將其持有的以美元計價的資產記入利潤，然後透過印製更多比索來彌補預算赤字，從而將這些利潤貨幣化。無論哪種方式，一旦財政部將TGA 貸記的新資金用於購買比特幣，美元最終將出現在私人資產負債表上，最有可能作為對聯準會的計息債權，例如銀行準備金或逆回購。

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.

我不清楚這將如何如該法案所聲稱的那樣“加強美國的金融狀況，對沖經濟不確定性和貨幣不穩定”，儘管這似乎確實是抬高美元價值的好方法比特幣和其他加密貨幣。

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:

假設我們給予魯米斯和她的支持者無罪推論。此舉是否有其他合理的理由？這是魯米斯在宣布她的提議的新聞稿中所說的：

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.

建立比特幣戰略儲備將牢牢確保美元在21 世紀作為世界儲備貨幣的地位，並確保我們在金融創新方面保持世界領先地位……美國目前在某些對美國國家安全和獨立至關重要的硬資產中保留戰略儲備，例如如黃金和石油。建立戰略比特幣儲備，以數位硬資產提振美元，將確保我們國家在未來幾十年作為全球金融領導者的地位。

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

在納許維爾比特幣會議上的演講中，她還表示“這是我們的路易斯安那購買時刻”，並暗示政府持有的比特幣價值不斷上升，最終將使財政部能夠回購所有（以美元計價）債務.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.

這些都沒有太大意義。但值得思考的是，為什麼它沒有意義，因為戰略儲備和儲備貨幣是經常被誤解的重要概念。

Trying to Understand the Bitcoiners’ Argument

試圖理解比特幣支持者的論點

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”.

在擬議的立法發布前不久，開採比特幣和製造電氣設備的 Riot Platforms 公共政策總監 Sam Lyman 在《福布斯》上發表了一篇觀點專欄，概述了為什麼政府應該建立「戰略比特幣儲備」。萊曼擁有共和黨政治背景，FOXBusiness 的一篇文章對魯米斯的聲明進行了引用，這表明他可能是幫助設計該提案的人之一。他的論點是「美國可以利用比特幣的獨特屬性作為數位黃金的一種形式，以阻止中國、俄羅斯和其他競爭對手利用其實物黃金儲備來削弱美元的主導地位」。

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:

我不知道這意味著什麼，萊曼的專欄沒有解釋這實際上是如何運作的——或者為什麼這兩種方式都很重要——但他確實引用了比特幣政策研究所的馬修·派恩斯(Matthew Pines) 的一篇論文（2023 年），該論文有很多內容更多細微差別。這是關鍵段落：

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

允許比特幣與黃金一起貨幣化（或超過黃金）將使美國受益匪淺（美國公民和企業擁有潛在的利益）