GuShiio.com The U.S. crypto strategic reserve is not only a change in asset allocation, but also a “silent war” for monetary sovereignty in the digital era. Regardless of whether this plan can ultimately be implemented, it has forced global sovereign institutions to reassess the strategic value of crypto assets-just as the Bretton Woods system established dollar hegemony in 1944, 2025 may become the first year of the “digital golden order.”
The Origin of Strategic Reserves: The National Resource Game from Oil to Bitcoin
In 1975, the United States established a strategic oil reserve in response to the oil crisis, which remains the core pillar of global energy security. In 2025, this model will be replicated in the crypto field-the Trump administration proposed to include cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC) into national strategic reserve assets, marking the leap of the United States from “oil hegemony” to “digital asset hegemony.”
The starting point of this strategy can be traced back to July 2024, when Senator Cynthia Lummis submitted the BITCOIN Act of 2024, which plans to gradually establish a national reserve of 1 million BTC through annual procurement. Later, Trump made “crypto strategic reserves” a core promise during the campaign, claiming to “make the United States the global crypto capital.” As of March 2025, the U.S. government has held approximately 200,000 BTC (worth approximately US$21 billion), mainly from criminal assets confiscated by the Department of Justice.
Policy implementation path: dual-track game between executive orders and congressional legislation
The current advancement of the U.S. encryption strategic reserve faces two major paths:
The “Blitz” of Executive Order
Trump plans to pass a presidential executive order instructing the Treasury Department to use the Foreign Exchange Stability Fund (ESF) to directly allocate BTC, bypassing the congressional approval process. This path can be launched as soon as the second half of 2025. The advantage lies in its efficiency, but it faces legal controversy: ESF is traditionally used to stabilize the exchange rate of the US dollar, and its use to purchase crypto assets may lead to unconstitutional litigation.
A “protracted battle” for congressional legislation
The BITCOIN Act needs to be voted by the House and Senate. The core controversial points include:
Source of funds: Whether to use the fiscal budget or issue special financing of treasury bonds;
Custody mechanism: The federal government builds its own cold wallet or entrusts compliance agencies such as Coinbase to manage it.
Global market shocks: Bitcoin’s “nationalization” and the competition for pricing power of crypto-assets
The U.S. crypto strategic reserves have triggered a chain reaction:
Currency prices fluctuate violently: On March 3, 2025, after Trump announced that the reserve plan would include XRP, SOL, ADA and other tokens, the relevant currencies increased by more than 15% within 24 hours;
Sovereign funds follow suit: Norway Sovereign Funds, Singapore GIC and others began to evaluate BTC allocation plans, pushing the market value of Bitcoin to exceed US$2 trillion;
Regulatory paradigm change: The U.S. SEC abolished Employee Accounting Announcement 121, which hindered the development of encryption, and established a special working group to coordinate policies.
It is worth noting that this strategy is reshaping the U.S. dollar system: BTC reserves may become a “new anchor asset” in addition to U.S. debt, consolidating their status as a global settlement currency through the “BTC-U.S. dollar” dual reserve model.
The whirlpool of controversy: Four major challenges to strategic reserves
Despite the attractive prospects, the U.S. crypto strategic reserves still face multiple questions:
Technical risks: Security risks such as BTC private key management and 51% attacks may threaten national financial security.
Conflict of laws: The Federal Reserve publicly opposes government-led hoarding of BTC, emphasizing that “monetary policy should not be tied to crypto-assets.”
Suspected market manipulation: After the U.S. government holds a large amount of BTC, it may influence the currency price through policy regulation, triggering controversy over “being both a referee and a player.”
International resistance: China and the European Union have criticized the United States for “crypto unilateralism” and plan to promote global crypto regulatory coordination under the IMF framework.
Future deduction: The triple changes in encryption geopolitics from 2025 to 2030
Digital gold standard war: The United States is pushing BTC as a reserve asset, China is betting on the central bank’s digital currency (CBDC), and the EU is exploring the ETH compliance path, forming a three-pronged pattern.
Crypto Cold War 2.0: If the United States successfully establishes BTC reserves, it may impose “crypto sanctions” on “de-dollarization” countries such as Iran and North Korea and freeze their assets on the chain.
The confluence of Wall Street and Silicon Valley: Venture capital institutions such as a16z are accelerating their lobbying of Congress to promote the “DeFi agreement into the strategic reserve ecosystem” to achieve deep binding between capital and policy.
Hong Kong’s response: Window of opportunity for the Web3 compliance hub
Faced with the impact of the U.S. encryption strategic reserves, Hong Kong is consolidating its position as Web3 through three major strategies:
Accelerate the issuance of VASP licenses: Four new licensed exchanges will be added in December 2024 to attract compliance capital inflows from the United States;
Launch a stablecoin sandbox: Jingdong, Standard Chartered and other companies participated in the test to explore interoperability paths with the U.S. dollar stablecoin;
Establish a US$100 million ecological fund: Focus on incubating BTC Layer2, compliant derivatives and other tracks to hedge the risk of U.S. policy fluctuations.
Conclusion: The “Bretton Woods moment” in the era of encryption
The U.S. crypto strategic reserve is not only a change in asset allocation, but also a “silent war” for monetary sovereignty in the digital era. Regardless of whether this plan can ultimately be implemented, it has forced global sovereign institutions to reassess the strategic value of crypto assets-just as the Bretton Woods system established dollar hegemony in 1944, 2025 may become the first year of the “digital golden order.”
Note: All data and policy progress in this article come from public documents from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Congress and crypto industry research reports.
