Supply is not a big issue because if needed, they can fix the algorithm to remove or burn coins like BNB is doing and the supply will become scarce. The problem that makes altcoins not comparable to bitcoin is that they are too centralized instead of decentralized, and having an asset that is centralized, managed or controlled by 1 person or a group is very risky.

Overall, adding altcoins to strategic reserves alongside bitcoin would devalue it, making bitcoin trivial and no longer special. Meanwhile, bitcoin is clearly on a completely different level than the rest of the crypto industry, which is why there is so much opposition.

Firstly, I don't really understand where Trump is going to get the money for this reserve. The US has enough problems now and the stock markets are being shaken by Trump's duties for other countries, and accordingly, cryptocurrencies are feeling bad because of this. Secondly, this news that the above-mentioned list of altcoins will be included in the Reserve does not make it a fact that Trump will subsequently say: "Guys, I thought about it, only Bitcoin can be in the Reserve."
Well, we'll find out tomorrow.

That means the Trump administration needs to convince the Fed but Fed Chairman, Power has also stated that they have no intention of adding bitcoin to the national reserves. Congress may be seen as the only body that can influence and direct what the Fed should do, but not all members of Congress support Trump's ideas.
Can the Trump administration create a strategic reserve without congressional approval and without the Fed?

On the contrary, I think they have enough power to manipulate the bitcoin market the way they want, and buying bitcoin is not as difficult as you say. Even ETFs didn't take long to buy over 1 million BTC in less than a year, so governments can easily buy bitcoin in the amount and even at the price they want.

Why? It's exactly what Trump promised: "Don't sell a Bitcoin".

200k coins isn't exactly nothing, and it means that this stack will not be sold in the short and medium term.

It's a good decision, at least regarding the Bitcoin reserve (the shitcoin reserve instead is terrible from every possible point of view, a complete waste of taxpayers money). Governments shouldn't have too much power in the Bitcoin game, and if they hold millions of BTC, they would likely have the power to change some development decisions. Even more so if the Bitcoin community is only concerned about short term price pumps and not about values like censorship resistance and decentralization.

That aside, even a million BTC bought would probably barely move the market on its own (that's the current accumulated Bitcoin trading volume of 1-3 days), it needs other buyers creating a supply shortage.

About your loan idea ... that would indeed involve taxpayers' money if the price change doesn't make up for the interest rates. There is no guarantee for a rising price, and buying now would mean also to buy the Bitcoins expensively, perhaps close to the cycle top.

Trump knows how to spike things up, so he does it in doses, just like as bullish news come, so come the news about so-called tariff wars, and so on.

We just need to wait more.

Actually, there are still plans to buy and accumulate more bitcoin as long as it doesn't cost taxpayers any money:


Now what does that mean exactly, and what's is the potential? are we talking millions or billions here? that I'm not entirely sure of.

I'd like to get some thoughts on this?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/establishment-of-the-strategic-bitcoin-reserveand-united-states-digital-asset-stockpile/


so for clarity
so it actually is going to be a bitcoin strategic reserve .. and a separate digital asset stockpile... and not the lame combined "strategic crypto reserve" notion..

and by the first week of april there will be knowledge of each departments ability and authority to potentially move the coin, .. basically nothings moving this month, just a report about ability to move coin


so they will only gain altcoins via asset forfeiture, but will be able to buy extra bitcoin when the market favours the purchase. but not using tax payers money if they have a budget deficit to need to take a loan ..
in short i feel this would be when they:
sell the altcoins they purchase btc
keep btc from people paying a "crypto tax" or fine
sell a USGOV HQ building or two.
have drained the swamp enough that the treasury budget is higher than the expenditure(budget surplus)

Just noticed this thread. Reading 👀… might update this comment.

Valid point!

But looking at how price is moving shows there is a tag of war between Sellers and buyers, to some extent indecision in the markets so to say as evidenced by the current ranging market's.

And btw between now and Monday,  if POTUS makes positive or negative remarks it will reflect in price and this being a weekend price momentum is going down ↓ and I see it tanking.

One relatively simple solution would be to sell reserves of another asset (e.g. gold) to buy Bitcoins. Basically what Lummins has proposed.

However, I don't think this could work on a big scale, at least not now. Before such a decision is taken, the entity in charge (Finance Ministry? Fed?) would need to carefully evaluate if the asset in question is likely to perform better or worse than Bitcoin. Because if the Bitcoins perform worse than the asset which was sold, the strategy would not be neutral for the Treasury and in the end, taxpayers' money would be needed to fill resulting losses.

For example, if gold is stagnating or declining and Bitcoin is currently not in a bubble, it could be relative low-risk to purchase Bitcoins selling gold. But if Bitcoin has already grown in price for a long time, and gold is also not showing signs of decline or bubble, then the risk to run into a bear market (like El Salvador did in 2022) is quite high. The entity should also be secretive about the purchases, as otherwise they risk to create a pump and buy too expensive. The reserve hasn't the purpose to make hodlers rich and much less to be the "final greater fool" in a bubble.

The use of tariff income is in reality using taxpayers' money, because the tariff income could otherwise be used to lower existing taxes (albeit I don't think tariffs would be neutral for the taxpayers, because they also fuel inflation). I'm however not knowledgeable enough if it is "legally" possible to "evade" the prohibition to use taxpayers money this way.