Connect with us

Uncategorized

8 Reasons a Strategic Crypto Reserve Is a Bad Idea

Published

on

One might think that virtually all Bitcoiners would be thrilled about the notion of the U.S. government acquiring BTC (and perhaps a basket of other cryptoassets) and effectively ratifying it as a global asset of consequence. However, I count myself among the few holdouts who don’t see the development as positive for either Bitcoin or the U.S. government itself. Here’s eight reasons why I don’t support the policy.

What is easily done is easily undone

If Bitcoiners want a reserve to last, they should want Trump to seek Congressional authorization for a purchase (as is customary for any large outlay). If it is done solely by executive fiat, the next administration will not feel bound by the policy and could trivially reverse it (and nuke the market in the process). If Bitcoiners sincerely believe it benefits the U.S. to acquire bitcoin and hold it for a long period of time, then they would have no issue insisting that the government pass a law authorizing spending for the Reserve, rather than having Trump enact the policy unilaterally.

The fact that many Bitcoiners are hoping that Trump makes the policy without asking Congress for approval shows that they are chasing a short-term pump, rather than actually being sincere about the long-term value of the Reserve for the U.S. A future Democratic administration will have no qualms about immediately divesting the Reserve.

The global reserve issuer should not disrupt itself

The U.S. is the issuer of the global reserve currency. We still don’t know how the Crypto Reserve will be positioned – as simply an investment fund, or something more inherent to the dollar such as a new commodity-based currency system like the old gold standard.

If the Crypto Reserve is contemplated as providing a new backing for the dollar, I believe this will cause significant unease in dollar and Treasury markets. Effectively, the government will be signaling that it believes it no longer has faith in the dollar system as it currently exists, and a radical change is needed. I imagine that this would cause already-high rates to rise, as the market starts to wonder whether the U.S. is contemplating a default on its debt. The government should be focused on shoring up investors’ faith in its ability to sustain its debt obligations by pursuing pro-growth and deficit-reducing policies, not toying with the entire structure of the dollar system.

Many Bitcoiners don’t buy this line of reasoning and simply want to accelerate the collapse of the dollar. I view this as a kind of financial terrorism. I don’t believe in financial accelerationism nor do I think bitcoin – or any other cryptoasset – is ready to serve as the backing of a new commodity standard for the dollar.

The U.S. already has plenty of exposure to Bitcoin

American funds and individuals hold more Bitcoin than the citizens of any other country on the planet – almost certainly by a large margin. The U.S. government already benefits from this state of affairs. When Bitcoin goes up, those Americans who realize their gains owe taxes to the government – either 20% or 40% of their gains based on how long they have held the position.

This is a meaningful point not to be overlooked. The U.S. already benefits when Bitcoin goes up, through tax realizations – more than any other country. In light of this, do we really need to pick a massive fight and insist that the U.S. government gain direct exposure for these assets, too? No one is pushing for the U.S. government to acquire Apple or NVIDIA stock. Why Bitcoin?

There is no “strategic” value in a crypto reserve

Generally, assets and commodities that the U.S. acquires at the government level are things that might be required in a pinch, and have to be accumulated ahead of time. The Petroleum Reserve is a good example, as oil is clearly an essential commodity, and in a crisis, we might not be able to acquire all the oil that we need.

We also maintain reserves of other sorts of strategic assets, such as medical supplies and equipment, rare earth minerals, helium, metals like uranium and tungsten, and agricultural commodities. These all have a clear and obvious purpose: creating a reserve that can be dipped into in a time of emergency.

We also stockpile foreign FX, in case we need to make interventions into currency markets, although these interventions are increasingly rare. There is no obvious strategic use for bitcoin (and certainly not Cardano or Ripple). Ordinary Americans do not need a “supply” of bitcoin or any other cryptoasset to support their quality of life. This might change if the entire financial system runs on a blockchain and we need the tokens for gas (the one analogous «industrial” use I could think of), but that’s not the state-of-play today. The only “strategic” use for bitcoin is simply going “long” the asset at the state level and selling it later, but you could accomplish this with any other financial asset. There’s nothing unique about bitcoin (or any other cryptoasset) in this regard.

Of course, if you’re going to ultimately back the dollar with bitcoin in some kind of neo gold standard, then it would have a strategic use (in which case you should refer back to point #2). But I don’t think that is the intent right now.

A Crypto Reserve dilutes the value proposition of Bitcoin

Mixing Bitcoin in with rival cryptoassets Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, and XRP and giving them all an equal government imprimatur devalues Bitcoin and makes it look undifferentiated from these assets. Bitcoin is the only one of the bunch with a credible supply schedule and genuine decentralization at the protocol level. A crypto reserve confuses the issue and devalues Bitcoin in the public eye. Principled Bitcoiners should push for an all-or-nothing approach; either just Bitcoin, or no reserve.

Bitcoin does not need the government

I wonder what early libertarian Bitcoiners from 2012-16 would think of 2025 Bitcoiners pushing for the government to backstop the value of their coins. Beyond the confusing ideological evolution that the Bitcoin community has undergone, another point remains. Bitcoin has been one of the best performing investments in history, monetizing from nothing in 2009/10 to trillions of dollars in aggregate value in 2025. It has done all of this without government support, and, indeed, in many cases, despite overt hostility from powerful nation-states. A Crypto Reserve would transform bitcoin from an apolitical asset into the plaything of the government, subject to Washington’s political cycles. Bitcoiners were never ones to hitch their wagon to the government, and they shouldn’t start now.

It would turn Americans against Bitcoiners

Only a fraction (somewhere between 5-20%) of Americans own bitcoin, and even fewer own other cryptoassets. Many Bitcoiners are extremely wealthy due to their historical investments in the coin and others. At a time when government spending is under the microscope, using taxpayer dollars – regardless of how mechanically they are apportioned – to bolster the price of Bitcoin and other cryptoassets will be politically unpopular. Biden’s proposed student loan amnesty was met with great resistance, despite potentially applying to 43 million borrowers. Bitcoiners are a smaller bunch and even less in need of financial support from the government. This policy would undoubtedly cause an unnecessary backlash in broader society against the crypto community.

It looks self-interested

It’s no secret that Trump and his cabinet and inner circle have ownership in various cryptoassets. Trump himself has launched, or is affiliated with: an NFT project built on ETH, more than one memecoin built on Solana, and, of course, World Liberty Financial which holds an array of crypto assets. What we need from Trump is reasonable crypto policy, and based on his appointments at Treasury, Commerce, SEC, CFTC, OCC and others, it looks like he is delivering that.

However, using government resources to directly increase the value of coins that Trump (and many in his inner circle) hold leaves a sour taste. Most of us in the crypto industry have simply been asking for reasonable policy and fair rules of the road so that we can do business in the U.S. Trump is proposing going much further than this and using taxpayer dollars to speculate on the coins themselves, potentially enriching himself and his associates.

To Trump’s critics, this appears corrupt. It also makes the remainder of Trump’s pro-crypto policymaking and regulatory efforts look self-interested, rather than letting it stand on its own as good policy. A future administration could choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater, reversing all the progress the U.S. has made on crypto. The existence of the Reserve gives future regressive efforts an easy moral justification.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Uncategorized

Fed’s Sept. 17 Rate Cut Could Spark Short-Term Jitters but Supercharge Bitcoin, Gold and Stocks Long Term

Published

on

By

Investors are counting down to the Federal Reserve’s Sept. 17 meeting, where markets expect a quarter-point rate cut that could trigger short-term volatility but potentially fuel longer-term gains across risk assets.

The economic backdrop highlights the Fed’s delicate balancing act.

According to the latest CPI report released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on Thursday, consumer prices rose 0.4% in August, lifting the annual CPI rate to 2.9% from 2.7% in July, as shelter, food, and gasoline pushed costs higher. Core CPI also climbed 0.3%, extending its steady pace of recent months.

Producer prices told a similar story: per the latest PPI report released on Wednesday, the headline PPI index slipped 0.1% in August but remained 2.6% higher than a year earlier, while core PPI advanced 2.8%, the largest yearly increase since March. Together, the reports underscore stubborn inflationary pressure even as growth slows.

The labor market has softened further.

Nonfarm payrolls increased by just 22,000 in August, with federal government and energy sector job losses offsetting modest gains in health care. Unemployment held at 4.3%, while labor force participation remained stuck at 62.3%.

Revisions showed June and July job growth was weaker than initially reported, reinforcing signs of cooling momentum. Average hourly earnings still rose 3.7% year over year, keeping wage pressures alive.

Bond markets have adjusted accordingly. The 2-year Treasury yield sits at 3.56%, while the 10-year is at 4.07%, leaving the curve modestly inverted. Futures traders see a 93% chance of a 25 basis point cut, according to CME FedWatch.

If the Fed limits its move to just 25 bps, investors may react with a “buy the rumor, sell the news” response, since markets have already priced in relief.

Equities are testing record levels.

Equities are testing record levels. The S&P 500 closed Friday at 6,584 after rising 1.6% for the week, its best since early August. The index’s one-month chart shows a strong rebound from its late-August pullback, underscoring bullish sentiment heading into Fed week.

S&P 500 One-Month Chart From Google Finance

The Nasdaq Composite also notched five straight record highs, ending at 22,141, powered by gains in megacap tech stocks, while the Dow slipped below 46,000 but still booked a weekly advance.

Crypto and commodities have rallied alongside.

Bitcoin is trading at $115,234, below its Aug. 14 all-time high near $124,000 but still firmly higher in 2025, with the global crypto market cap now $4.14 trillion.

Bitcoin One-Month Price Chart From CoinDesk Data

Gold has surged to $3,643 per ounce, near record highs, with its one-month chart showing a steady upward trajectory as investors price in lower real yields and seek inflation hedges.

One-Month Gold Price Chart From TradingView

Gold has climbed steadily toward record highs, while bitcoin has consolidated below its August peak, reflecting ongoing demand for alternative stores of value.

Historical precedent supports the cautious optimism.

Analysis from the Kobeissi Letter — reported in an X thread posted Saturday — citing Carson Research, shows that in 20 of 20 prior cases since 1980 where the Fed cut rates within 2% of S&P 500 all-time highs, the index was higher one year later, averaging gains of nearly 14%.

The shorter term is less predictable: in 11 of those 22 instances, stocks fell in the month following the cut. Kobeissi argues this time could follow a similar pattern — initial turbulence followed by longer-term gains as rate relief amplifies the momentum behind assets like equities, bitcoin, and gold.

The broader setup explains why traders are watching the Sept. 17 announcement closely.

Cutting rates while inflation edges higher and stocks hover at records risks denting credibility, yet staying on hold could spook markets that have already priced in easing. Either way, the Fed’s message on growth, inflation, and its policy outlook will likely shape the trajectory of markets for months to come.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Your Company Probably Doesn’t Need Its Own L2

Published

on

By

More and more companies are attracted to the idea of launching their own Ethereum layer 2 network. Most of them shouldn’t bother. There’s already a staggering number of them — over 150. Quite a few of these are centralized and linked to a single enterprise and several companies such as Robinhood have recently announced plans to launch their own layer 2 networks.

The attractions for launching an Ethereum layer 2 network are significant, especially when compared to launching your own layer 1 (foundation layer) blockchain. Layer 1 networks must compete with networks like Ethereum and Solana in an already intensely competitive and crowded market. Layer 2 networks that run on top of Ethereum also face an intensely competitive marketplace but can simultaneously draw upon the strength of the Ethereum ecosystem, thanks to deep integration into Ethereum itself.

With Ethereum having turned 10 in July, it remains the dominant smart contract blockchain and it is the largest single home for digital assets, real-world assets (RWA), stablecoins and decentralized finance applications. Ethereum’s share of the overall decentralized finance ecosystem has been stable at about 50% for three years now. When layer 2 networks are included in the total, it appears to be rising modestly.

The temptation to launch your own Ethereum layer 2 network is easy to understand — they look like a useful concept with great economics. A layer 2 network on top of Ethereum offers a bit of “best of both worlds” functionality: you can control your own ecosystem within your layer 2 but retain integration with and access to the overall Ethereum ecosystem. Centralized layer 2 networks can set their own price structures and have nearly all the same controls as a stand-alone private blockchain such as deciding who has access to the network and what kind of data will be visible to others.

This comes with a cost. Layer 2 networks must purchase transaction processing space on the Ethereum mainnet to finalize their transactions (known as blob space) — but those costs are likely to be lower than those associated with starting a network from scratch and competing head-on with Ethereum. In fact, according to Token Terminal, the costs of developing a layer 2 are remarkably low. For Base, a layer 2 network run by Coinbase, during June of 2025, the network generated $4.9 million in fee revenue and spent just $50,000 on layer 1 settlement fees.

Indeed, the layer 1 settlement fees on Ethereum are so low they have set off a fiery debate within the network ecosystem about whether they are too low, and that layer 2 networks represent a transfer of benefits from layer 1 stakeholders to layer 2 networks. It is likely this will result in some re-balancing of fees, but even a 10x increase in fees is not likely to alter the fundamentally good value proposition that comes with scaling with layer 2 networks.

Furthermore, the recent announcement by Robinhood that they will be building their own layer 2 network on Ethereum fundamentally validates the overall layer 2 thesis within Ethereum: layer 2 networks are not only a good scaling option, they also enable a variety of business models that will entice a wide range of companies to join the network.The layer 2 ecosystem is likely to have a range of participants from the fully decentralized to the completely centralized.

And this brings us to the key question: does your company need its own layer 2 network? Chances are, you don’t. The real value proposition of a blockchain ecosystem is the ability to work in cooperation with others without any one party controlling the network. If you’re a manufacturing company, for example, you want to work with your suppliers and customers on a level playing field with your competitors. Blockchains let everyone join in without favoring any one participant. In the long run, working together on a level playing field is much cheaper and preferable to trying to integrate into different systems controlled by each one of your key customers or suppliers.

While some layer 2 networks look very profitable right now, this is only true if you can generate good transaction volume. Many of the layer 2 networks operating are doing little to no business as they struggle to differentiate themselves in a crowded market. According to L2Beat, most of these networks have less than $1mm in TVL bridged in from Ethereum and are averaging less than one user operation per second.

So when does a company need its own layer 2 network? My hypothesis is that this works best for firms that can aggregate significant transaction volume into the network and whose customers do not have the means or the individual volume to make their own direct connection to Ethereum. Right now, that largely means financial services firms that have thousands or millions of retail customers, from Coinbase to Kraken to Robinhood. More firms will surely follow. Having a layer 2 network might be seen, in the future, the way we looked at having a seat on the New York Stock Exchange. Brokerage firms would want them, but a car maker wouldn’t find value in it.

Three questions would be useful in determining if a firm should launch its own Ethereum layer 2 network: first, is the company able to aggregate a significant volume of its own transactions or clients compared to other networks? Second, is transacting on-chain central to the company’s core business model (e.g., are you an intermediary, especially a financial one that presently transacts on traditional financial rails). Lastly, does your layer 2 approach offer a differentiated value proposition compared to the many other network options out there? If you can say yes to all three options, this is a possible path forward.

For most other types of firms, they may find the optimal value proposition to be connecting directly to Ethereum, or one of the other open layer 2 networks. It will be less costly and more private than going through an aggregator who will be able to mark up your transaction costs and see your transaction flow and less costly than running your own network.

I suspect, however, that before we are done, quite a few firms that have no need to run their own layer 2 will launch one anyway for the same reasons many firms launched private chains in the past.

No matter how reliably they have failed, the attraction of private blockchains was always hard to counter. The allure of “controlling your destiny” and “taxing the ecosystem” was hard to resist. Public chains, with their openness, interoperability, and permissionless nature can look scary to business users who would prefer more control.

To the same buyers who wanted private chains, centralized layer 2 networks look like a halfway house that may seem appealing. Unlike private chains, I don’t think they are all doomed to fail, but I do suspect only a few will succeed. History keeps repeating itself — mostly because we’re not very good at paying attention to it. Here we go again.

Disclaimer: These are the personal views of the author and do not represent the views of EY.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Memecoins Rally as Traders Bet on Fed Rate Cut and U.S. Altcoin ETFs

Published

on

By

The memecoin sector is heating up as fresh altcoin season talks are starting to grow on social media, partly driven by expectations that the Federal Reserve will this coming week cut interest rates, a boon for risk assets.

Bitcoin’s market dominance has dropped 3.5% in the past month, and its underperformance relative to altcoins has now seen altcoin season indexes, which measure the performance of top cryptocurrencies against BTC, enter “altseason” territory.

Altseason, short for altcoin season, refers to a period in which alternative cryptocurrencies significantly outperform bitcoin. It often starts as capital rotates out of bitcoin amid growing risk appetite.

Those include indexes from CoinMarketCap and CoinGlass. Over the last 24 hours bitcoin moved up just 0.3%, while the CoinDesk Memecoin Index (CDMEME) rose 7.1%.

Pushing up prices in the CDMEME index are some tokens like SHIB and BONE, which recently puzzlingly surged after Shiba Inu’s layer-2 network Shibarium suffered a flash loan exploit.

The growing performance of altcoins stems from growing risk appetite, as lowering interest rates makes safer investments like government bonds less appealing. This renewed risk appetite is fueling a cascading rotation of capital across markets.

Traders on prediction market Polymarket now see a 92% chance that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates by 25 basis points this month, and a 7% chance that rate will be 50 bps. On the CME’s FedWatch tool, odds of a smaller cut are at 93%, while odds of a larger cut are at 6.6%.

Against this backdrop, a wave of altcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) is in line to hit U.S. markets in the last quarter of the year if these are approved. These even include a DOGE ETF and a TRUMP ETF.

If approved, these ETFs could bring more retail and institutional investors into the altcoin space by offering regulated access to cryptocurrencies beyond BTC and ETH, whose spot ETFs in the U.S. have amassed billions in assets.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.