Is MicroStrategy Building a National Bitcoin Reserve for the American Government?

In short: maybe. There’s no direct or conclusive evidence to back this idea up, and everything that follows is speculative. But when you look at the big picture, the pieces seem to fit together remarkably well…

MicroStrategy has captured global attention for its relentless Bitcoin acquisition, often raising questions beyond traditional corporate strategy. With over 331,000 Bitcoin in its treasury as of November 2024, the company owns approximately 1.58% of all the Bitcoin that will ever exist. This significant accumulation raises an intriguing question: Could MicroStrategy be building a Bitcoin reserve on behalf of the United States?

At first glance, it might seem far-fetched. Yet when we consider America’s strategic interests, a fascinating possibility emerges—one in which MicroStrategy’s actions align suspiciously well with what the U.S. might do if it were covertly amassing a national Bitcoin reserve.

America’s Stealth Play in Bitcoin

If America were building a national Bitcoin reserve, secrecy would be paramount. Here’s why:

• 1. Incentives for Concealment: The last thing the U.S. would want is for other nations to start aggressively buying Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a finite asset with a hard cap of 21 million coins. If the world saw that the U.S. government was amassing a large Bitcoin reserve, it could trigger a global rush into Bitcoin that would make further accumulation much more expensive and push the price dramatically higher. For a strategic nation-state like the United States, keeping any potential “Bitcoin reserve strategy” under wraps would make sense—letting others know would only drive up the price and reduce U.S. purchasing power.
• 2. Soft Control via Private Sector: Instead of directly buying and holding Bitcoin on its own balance sheet, the U.S. could let private companies like MicroStrategy and others with less regulatory scrutiny acquire it on their behalf. This approach offers plausible deniability and aligns with America’s historical strategy of outsourcing certain government functions to the private sector. And when the time is right, the government could potentially step in to exert control over this “strategic reserve.”

MicroStrategy: Building a Reserve Without Even Realizing It?

It’s possible that MicroStrategy itself isn’t even aware of the full potential geopolitical implications of its Bitcoin holdings. The U.S. government might prefer it this way. By staying out of the picture, the government avoids public scrutiny and potential backlash from both citizens and foreign governments. Meanwhile, MicroStrategy continues its accumulation under the guise of corporate investment, albeit on a scale far larger than any other public company has attempted.

• 1. Government Leverage through Seizure or Buyout: Once MicroStrategy’s holdings reach a level that is geopolitically significant, the U.S. government could simply acquire the assets—either by nationalizing the company’s Bitcoin holdings under the guise of “national security” or by making a financial offer that’s difficult to refuse. A buyout could even come with stipulations, like requiring that MicroStrategy not use the proceeds to buy more Bitcoin, at least initially, to prevent further price surges. This type of arrangement would be in line with historical government strategies to gain control over strategically valuable resources.
• 2. Michael Saylor’s Ambitions Aligning with National Interests: Michael Saylor has been open about his vision of MicroStrategy as a Bitcoin treasury. Although he’s never claimed this treasury would serve the U.S. government, his statements have underscored the idea of creating a substantial Bitcoin reserve. He may be motivated by personal conviction and profit, but his company’s actions align suspiciously well with what the U.S. might do if it wanted to secure a Bitcoin reserve.

A Shift in the Bitcoin Narrative: Custody and Control

In recent statements, Michael Saylor has suggested that self-custody of Bitcoin is not always necessary. This view diverges from Bitcoin’s core ethos of decentralization and personal sovereignty, where “not your keys, not your coins” is gospel. By downplaying self-custody, Saylor might be signaling an openness to a future where MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin could be held in a way that’s accessible—or even controllable—by third parties. If the government were interested in tapping into this reserve, a looser stance on custody would certainly make that easier.

Could this shift hint at a subtle alignment between Saylor and potential government interests? If MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin is ever moved to custodianship arrangements that make it easier to “freeze” or “access,” it could align with the government’s strategy to eventually gain control, while ostensibly leaving Bitcoin in private hands.

Could MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin Holdings Become a “National Asset”?

Bitcoin proponents often describe the cryptocurrency as “digital gold.” Historically, governments have seized control of gold during periods of crisis, as happened in the U.S. with the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, which confiscated privately held gold to stabilize the nation’s monetary system. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that, in a future financial crisis or during rising geopolitical tensions, the U.S. government might consider large Bitcoin holdings a matter of national security.

In such a scenario, MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin holdings could become part of America’s de facto strategic reserves, with the company perhaps compensated or restructured in the process. And if this happens, it wouldn’t be an accident or coincidence. MicroStrategy’s aggressive Bitcoin strategy might be laying the groundwork for a national reserve without even realizing it.

The Geopolitical Advantage: Why a Bitcoin Reserve Matters to the U.S.

With the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and heightened interest in Bitcoin among adversarial countries like Russia and China, Bitcoin’s geopolitical importance is growing. As a neutral, decentralized asset, Bitcoin offers a unique hedge against the dollar’s potential decline as the world’s reserve currency. By holding a significant portion of the global Bitcoin supply, the U.S. could gain an advantage in a world where digital assets become increasingly influential.

• 1. Dollar Hedge: Bitcoin’s finite supply and decentralized nature mean it could act as a strategic hedge against the dollar’s erosion in value, which has been exacerbated by years of quantitative easing. By securing a substantial reserve, the U.S. would be protecting itself against a potential shift in the global economic landscape.
• 2. Economic Power Projection: In a world where Bitcoin’s value skyrockets, a national Bitcoin reserve could grant the U.S. enormous influence. It could act as a counterbalance to adversarial powers who might otherwise use Bitcoin as a tool to circumvent sanctions or the dollar-based financial system. By controlling a significant portion of Bitcoin’s supply, America would hold a potent tool in a new era of economic warfare.

Conclusion: Speculation or Strategy?

Of course, all of this remains highly speculative. There’s no clear proof that MicroStrategy is building a national Bitcoin reserve for America, nor that the U.S. government has any intention of seizing its assets. Yet the pieces of the puzzle fit intriguingly well, especially when one considers the U.S. government’s historical playbook of quietly co-opting private assets for national interests when deemed necessary.

If America were interested in securing a Bitcoin reserve without sparking a global Bitcoin rush, using a private company like MicroStrategy could be the perfect cover. Whether by design or by coincidence, MicroStrategy’s actions align with what the U.S. might want in a potential Bitcoin strategy. And if Michael Saylor’s vision continues, his company could one day find itself at the center of a new kind of national reserve—a digital reserve for a digital age.

BONUS ROUND/ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS/POINTS:

1. The “Strategic Defense” Theory:
   • Argument: With Bitcoin’s value increasing and its use as a decentralized asset, it could be seen as an economic weapon if foreign countries adopt it at scale. If countries like China or Russia start accumulating Bitcoin to hedge against the dollar, the U.S. may see securing a Bitcoin reserve as a strategic defense measure.
   • Supporting Points: As part of its national security strategy, the U.S. has historically stockpiled critical assets, from oil reserves to precious metals. Given Bitcoin’s scarcity and growth, it could be viewed as another vital reserve for maintaining economic stability and security in a digital economy.
2. “Financial Arsenal” for Digital Currency Wars:
   • Argument: Some believe the world is heading into a digital currency “cold war” as central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) develop globally. Bitcoin, being decentralized and limited in supply, could act as a unique asset for the U.S. in this space, much like nuclear technology served as a deterrent during the Cold War.
   • Supporting Points: If other countries adopt Bitcoin or create their own stable assets to rival the dollar, the U.S. might need Bitcoin as an “asset of last resort” to ensure it retains leverage and competitive positioning in an increasingly digital financial ecosystem.
3. Potential “Bailout Plan” for the U.S. Dollar:
   • Argument: In the event of a major devaluation of the U.S. dollar or hyperinflation, Bitcoin could serve as a backup asset to stabilize the national economy. MicroStrategy’s holdings could, in this case, function as an emergency resource to inject Bitcoin-backed liquidity into the financial system.
   • Supporting Points: Historical parallels can be drawn to countries that have backed their currencies with reserves of gold or foreign currency. As a non-sovereign, decentralized asset, Bitcoin could offer a similar hedge and add credibility to the dollar if its value were under threat.
4. The “Private Sector Trojan Horse” Theory:
   • Argument: MicroStrategy (and other companies accumulating Bitcoin) could serve as a stealthy means for the U.S. to stockpile digital currency without directly intervening. By encouraging large corporations to acquire Bitcoin, the government could position itself to nationalize or leverage these reserves if necessary.
   • Supporting Points: The government has previously leveraged private-sector companies for critical projects or assets in times of crisis, especially during wartime. A similar approach could make Bitcoin reserves indirectly accessible to the government if a national need ever arises.
5. The “Controlled Experiment” Theory:
   • Argument: The U.S. government may want to study the implications of large-scale Bitcoin holdings and integration without assuming the risk directly. MicroStrategy’s buying spree could be a sort of “test case,” allowing the government to analyze outcomes without putting taxpayer dollars on the line.
   • Supporting Points: The U.S. might prefer observing how a U.S.-based company like MicroStrategy handles Bitcoin’s volatility, regulatory issues, and security challenges before making any direct moves into the asset. This theory frames MicroStrategy as a pilot program for understanding large-scale Bitcoin custody and its economic impact.
6. Michael Saylor as the “Bitcoin Evangelist” for America:
   • Argument: As a vocal advocate for Bitcoin, Saylor has the potential to shift public perception, not just among investors but also among policymakers. If his influence grows, he might play a role in helping the U.S. government see Bitcoin as a strategic asset, nudging them toward supporting or even owning Bitcoin.
   • Supporting Points: Saylor’s public influence could create a favorable narrative around Bitcoin that aligns it with American values of financial freedom and individual sovereignty. His role could be compared to past figures who have swayed public and governmental attitudes toward major technological shifts.
7. The “Gold Standard 2.0” Theory:
   • Argument: Bitcoin has been described as “digital gold” for its scarcity and predictable issuance rate. In an era where the dollar is increasingly under scrutiny, Bitcoin could become part of a new “gold standard” if the U.S. were to back part of its currency with a Bitcoin reserve.
   • Supporting Points: Similar to gold, Bitcoin is scarce and cannot be inflated by printing more. The U.S. once led global markets with a gold-backed dollar, and a Bitcoin-backed asset could restore a new level of trust and confidence in the American financial system.
8. Bitcoin as a Tool for Future Economic Sanctions:
   • Argument: If the U.S. acquires a substantial Bitcoin reserve, it might use Bitcoin as leverage in international trade or even sanctions. With Bitcoin’s permissionless nature, it could create new financial channels for the U.S. to exert influence globally without relying entirely on the dollar.
   • Supporting Points: The dollar’s dominance has allowed the U.S. to enforce economic sanctions, but the rise of alternative currencies threatens this leverage. With Bitcoin, the U.S. could still have a form of financial influence in the global market, especially as digital assets grow in popularity among nations.
9. The “Digital Cold War” Parallel:
   • Argument: As more countries move toward digital assets, we may be entering a “digital Cold War,” where Bitcoin is seen as a strategic asset like nuclear technology. In this context, the U.S. government might encourage American companies to accumulate Bitcoin to ensure it has the largest share in this “new gold rush.”
   • Supporting Points: Just as the U.S. sought nuclear supremacy during the Cold War, having a stronghold on Bitcoin could provide an advantage over other nations. This digital “arms race” could see governments quietly encouraging private companies to take large Bitcoin positions, just as nuclear technology was initially concentrated in private companies.

Thoughts?