I don't like the idea of governments holding millions of Bitcoins.

[Furious 7]

I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

They cannot damage bitcoin directly with various sentiments so for now it seems they are playing a more subtle way by trying to buy bitcoin and sell it simultaneously later.
Although this is not necessarily true, I think this is the most likely risk to occur because after all when talking about a country and government, we must realize that in the end the average government or those with interests will not like bitcoin because it is considered to interfere with their finances which in the end this is used as a claim with some incriminating media sentiment so that bitcoin is considered bad even though it doesn't work.

It's just that whether we like it or not to countries that do adopt bitcoin, we also can't do much because after all, with the concept of bitcoin that can be used for anyone it is difficult to control so the government must think when it can't touch the realm of bitcoin directly then they will do it from the inside with adoptions like this.

[Odohu]

I don't think it matters if you like it or not, Bitcoin is decentralized therefore accessible to anyone. If governments think it wise invest and hold Bitcoin, they can and I see them just like an individual holding Bitcoin. There is really no difference between government holding Bitcoin and big cooperations like MicroStrategy...

Your reference to what the authorities can do through regulations can still happen without them holding majority of Bitcoin. It is just a matter of time before countries start investing in Bitcoin, the signs are there already. As individuals, we should just prepare ourselves for that time and take advantage of the opportunities we have now.

[Cryptmuster]

I don't think it matters if you like it or not, Bitcoin is decentralized therefore accessible to anyone. If governments think it wise invest and hold Bitcoin, they can and I see them just like an individual holding Bitcoin. There is really no difference between government holding Bitcoin and big cooperations like MicroStrategy...

Your reference to what the authorities can do through regulations can still happen without them holding majority of Bitcoin. It is just a matter of time before countries start investing in Bitcoin, the signs are there already. As individuals, we should just prepare ourselves for that time and take advantage of the opportunities we have now.

Of the countries that I know, only El Salvador invests in bitcoin, and its investments are relatively small, while other large bitcoin holders have mostly confiscated it and are ready to sell it at any time, as Germany did recently. The state's priority now remains increasing its gold and foreign exchange reserves, and bitcoin is still perceived as a high-risk and volatile asset for them. All the talk about bitcoin being used by states as a reserve along with gold is nothing more than someone's assumptions, which so far have nothing to do with reality.

[davis196]

- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.

If such thing happens, the BTC price would crash down to 1K or even lower. A lot of Bitcoiners would lose a lot of money and the Bitcoiners, who sold BTC at the right time would simply never buy BTC again and move to Monero(or they might completely leave the crypto markets). The Bitcoin community will get severely reduced in size and the trust in Bitcoin would be almost completely destroyed. Your case scenario is possible, but I don't believe that it will happen in reality. All the Democrats and many Republicans won't allow such decision to be taken by the Congress and Senate. Countries like China and India would never buy BTC or altcoins. The whole process of attacking and conquering the Bitcoin blockchain become pointless, because no country would get any profit from it.

[Ultegra134]

I don't think it matters if you like it or not, Bitcoin is decentralized therefore accessible to anyone. If governments think it wise invest and hold Bitcoin, they can and I see them just like an individual holding Bitcoin. There is really no difference between government holding Bitcoin and big cooperations like MicroStrategy...

Your reference to what the authorities can do through regulations can still happen without them holding majority of Bitcoin. It is just a matter of time before countries start investing in Bitcoin, the signs are there already. As individuals, we should just prepare ourselves for that time and take advantage of the opportunities we have now.

Finally, someone raised this topic; it's something I had been thinking about as well, especially after Trump's statements regarding cryptocurrencies. The OP's concern is valid; the hypothetical scenario being discussed is a plausible one. Governments have the ability to acquire significant amounts of bitcoin, which raises valid concerns about the decentralization of cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin's nature is decentralized; that's true, but how decentralized can we claim it is after 20% to 30% of Bitcoin is under government ownership? What would happen in the scenario of blacklisted addresses?

Unfortunately, from how I see things, it's a plausible scenario that we might face in the upcoming future.

[Alpha Marine]

Well, you are seeing this from one angle and failing to see it from another angle, the dangers you talked about are there just as you have described it, but did you even bother a bit to ask yourself, what it will take to buy up to 2 million or more bitcoin from the open market? Even buying 50,000 bitcoin can drive the price of bitcoin up high to the roof, not to talk of buying up to 1 or 2 million bitcoins, buying up to this mentioned about of bitcoin, I can tell you will drive the price of bitcoin to nothing less than a million Dollar, now think about what will happen when one have to spend up to a million dollars just to own 1 bitcoin, and you need like 1 million bitcoins, and remember the more you buying, the more expensive it gets.

I must be honest, I don't like the idea of the government holding such amounts of Bitcoin, but for now, I'm not too bothered about the government having that amount of Bitcoin because I see all these talks as just campaign strategies. Politicians talk a lot before they're elected and when they get elected they find out that it's not as easy as they think it is, that's if they have any plans of implementing what they said.

Let's assume the government wants to buy 2 million BTC at the current price of $64,000, that's a total of about $128 billion. I do not think such an amount of money would be released for any president to buy Bitcoin. Except it's a dictatorship, he alone doesn't have that much power. But even if he does, like you said, the more they buy the more the price goes up. It may not go up as much as a million dollars, but it will go up a reasonable amount and it would become more difficult for them to buy up to 2 million btc.

[Marvell1]

Well, you are seeing this from one angle and failing to see it from another angle, the dangers you talked about are there just as you have described it, but did you even bother a bit to ask yourself, what it will take to buy up to 2 million or more bitcoin from the open market? Even buying 50,000 bitcoin can drive the price of bitcoin up high to the roof, not to talk of buying up to 1 or 2 million bitcoins, buying up to this mentioned about of bitcoin, I can tell you will drive the price of bitcoin to nothing less than a million Dollar, now think about what will happen when one have to spend up to a million dollars just to own 1 bitcoin, and you need like 1 million bitcoins, and remember the more you buying, the more expensive it gets.

I must be honest, I don't like the idea of the government holding such amounts of Bitcoin, but for now, I'm not too bothered about the government having that amount of Bitcoin because I see all these talks as just campaign strategies. Politicians talk a lot before they're elected and when they get elected they find out that it's not as easy as they think it is, that's if they have any plans of implementing what they said.

Let's assume the government wants to buy 2 million BTC at the current price of $64,000, that's a total of about $128 billion. I do not think such an amount of money would be released for any president to buy Bitcoin. Except it's a dictatorship, he alone doesn't have that much power. But even if he does, like you said, the more they buy the more the price goes up. It may not go up as much as a million dollars, but it will go up a reasonable amount and it would become more difficult for them to buy up to 2 million btc.

They don't need to spend $128 billion to buy a large amount of bitcoin at once, they can use the same DCA strategy we are using. We should not underestimate the fact that they could buy the majority of bitcoin if they really wanted to do it and it wouldn't be too difficult for them. Governments may not be getting into the game anytime soon, but it is happening for major financial institutions. I believe that BlackRock owning millions of bitcoins is something that will happen sooner or later.
In just a few months since bitcoin ETFs were approved, they have bought and held over 300kBTC and it was only a matter of time before they had 1 million BTC.

Source: X.com

[Lucius]

~snip~
I am not against Donald Trump's idea regarding Bitcoin. I will support anyone who helps Bitcoin's performance, including those who have power.

Does this mean that you will soon be "waving" the flag of another country that causes terrible suffering to other people just because they suddenly became pro-Bitcoin?

Russian lawmakers passed a bill on Tuesday that will allow businesses to use crypto currencies in international trade, as part of efforts to skirt Western sanctions imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The law is expected to go into force in September, and Russian central bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina, one of the backers of the new law, said the first transactions in cryptocurrencies will take place before the end of the year.

I will not support anyone who says he is pro-Bitcoin, and at the same time has dangerous intentions, which concern not only the people in the country where he lives, but also the whole world. Bitcoin should be apolitical, not dependent on one man, no matter who he is.

[NotATether]

Governments have no reason to be holding any number of bitcoins in the first place unless they actually believe in the tech like El Salvador.

Since what they are after is hard, liquid cash, they should just sell it on the open market immediately and get it over with.

All this hoarding of thousands of bitcoins and then selling them all at on hurts prices and it's something that governments could potentially use (and weaponize) to manipulate crypto markets.

[vjudeu]

they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist

Note that users don't have to follow the latest version, because of that. And note that since Ordinals, it is possible to deploy new features, without asking developers. Currently, we don't even have a single mempool policy: there are nodes with full-RBF, and nodes without full-RBF; nodes censoring Ordinals, and nodes allowing them; mining pools accepting out-of-band transactions, and those who don't. Sure, developers can be forced to implement something, but would users agree to update? Many developers have much less power, than you can expect. They cannot even kill testnet3 that easily by "pulling off the plug", because the network is decentralized. All they can do, is to remove the code for testnet3 in the next version, but it won't kill the network: it will simply move it into the altcoin land (and because of long history, and being quite close to the mainnet, it may perform better than a lot of other altcoins).

This would of course need a hard fork.

If something needs a hard-fork, then it will be rejected, just because of that reason alone. It is more likely to see some evil soft-fork being accepted, than any hard-fork. Really, the nearest date for any hard-fork is 2038, because then some clients may terminate with "assertion failed" message, and people may be forced to upgrade (and only those, who will still use some version around 22.0, in 2038, and will be living under a rock for around 15 years). And if not that, then probably something like 2106. And guess what: it is even more likely to see the latest block, being constantly rewritten, than see some proper hard-fork, even in that case. Just because doing chain-reorg on the last N blocks, and pushing the chain forward in that way is easier, than writing a good code.

by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork

Then go on, just sell it. For a successful transaction, you need two sides: the seller, and the buyer. People will simply dump their govBTC for real BTC, just like they did in 2017, and during many other altcoin wars. Then, the history will just repeat, and you simply won't have 1:1 peg between govBTC and BTC. You will have more similar situation, as it was between BTC and BCH. And a lot of users will happily dump some worthless coins, to get some worthy ones, just like they dump some altcoins today, to get real BTCs.

What do you think?

I think you are worrying too much about it. People panicked in March 2020, and it was a great time for buying BTCs. If some government will sell, then any sane person will just buy the dip. It is a simple question: which coin is worth more? Gresham's law can be applied here: you sell bad coins, and keep good coins. And then, bad coins are in circulation, while good coins are used as a store of value. It was always the case, even in Middle Ages, and it is also true today.

[justdimin]

Governments such as the US stockpiling Bitcoin? Not just disturbing, but also quite dangerous. Sure, in the short term, it might pump up the price, and some folks might make a quick buck. Long term, though, it is a catastrophe just waiting to happen. These governments have printing capability for their own money. They may play games with the market, utilise it for their own goals; they do not need to sell Bitcoin. It might change Bitcoin from their toy from the open, distributed system it is supposed to be into

The bitcoin community must get more active. We have to defend the things we created. This is a point to show what Bitcoin is actually able to do. This is an opportunity to guarantee that it remains faithful to its original intent: that of a currency for the people, not a weapon for the powerful. We refuse to allow them steer Bitcoin or take over it

I mean in the sense that if they were buying for investment reasons then I would say that would be a good thing, like how Trump talked about creating a bitcoin reserve, if it was that kind of thing then I would say that's not really that bad. However, if we are talking about something a bit more serious, like how they seized hundreds of thousands of bitcoins, then we are talking about them not having it just because they wanted to, they just ended up with it and that's the most important part.

If we can make that work somehow, then we are going to end up with some profit and that will be a good situation without a doubt. I think the greatest situation would be just focusing on how to get a better result, it's going to be very entertaining and we are going to see something better. I think the result will be quite good eventually, just assume what we can do and how we can move from there.

[NotATether]

they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist

Note that users don't have to follow the latest version, because of that. And note that since Ordinals, it is possible to deploy new features, without asking developers. Currently, we don't even have a single mempool policy: there are nodes with full-RBF, and nodes without full-RBF; nodes censoring Ordinals, and nodes allowing them; mining pools accepting out-of-band transactions, and those who don't. Sure, developers can be forced to implement something, but would users agree to update? Many developers have much less power, than you can expect. They cannot even kill testnet3 that easily by "pulling off the plug", because the network is decentralized. All they can do, is to remove the code for testnet3 in the next version, but it won't kill the network: it will simply move it into the altcoin land (and because of long history, and being quite close to the mainnet, it may perform better than a lot of other altcoins).

Bitcoin Core is open-source software and as such it would be trivially easy to rip out any sort of blacklisting code that is implemented inside it.

People often forget that Bitcoin Core development is highly transparent, where *every single commit* is made via pull request, with detailed explanations and much debating, and most importantly, all of this is done in public so there can never be any surprises in the final binary.

[pooya87]

OFAC already does that. They have a list of "sanctioned" addresses that they are forcing the American miners to "censor".

And are the mining pools blacklisting these sanctioned addresses? I don't think so. The last time i read about a mining pool filtering addresses and their tx's on the grounds of OFAC sanctions was last year, and it was F2pool. Though if i remember correctly, they backtracked on that decision, whenever miners start sanctioning addresses, that could spell trouble for the BTC network.

OFAC is Office of Foreign Assets Control, an agency of the U.S. Treasury Department. F2Pool is a Chinese mining pool in Beijing, China. The pools they enforce OFAC nonsense on are mainly the American miners and mining pools like the MARA pool which is probably what you had in mind.

[PIMPdev]

Well, I can understand you, but most of the Bitcoin is still in the hands of the individual holders, and I hope it will stay that way. If we start becoming a minority - then there will be a reason to panic.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

I don't like the idea of the government being in possession of a huge amount of bitcoin either. Fiat is the major concern of the government, and I think they should be concerned with fiat alon. I feel that when the government is in possession of a huge amount of Bitcoin, they can manipulate the price of Bitcoin and also make Bitcoin more centralized, just like they are already doing through some centralized exchange. 

I made one emphasis in a comment before now that if the government, by chance, is in possession of about 70% of the total Bitcoin and they decide to create their own personal centralized system, just like they are in charge of banks, then if anyone must invest in or own a Bitcoin, the person's full identity will be revealed and the investment will be controlled by a third party. When I made such a statement, someone said that it could not happen, but the question has always been: what if it happens? That means the government has succeeded in making Bitcoin completely centralized, which was not what Satoshi wanted.

What the government needs to do is work on increasing the value of fiat (by managing money supply), reduce inflation, and still use their fiat for federal reserve.

[stompix]

Bukele buys Bitcoins!

5000 Bitcoins isn't the same thing as 4 millions

Salvador is not the US, and actually pretty funny if we consider GDP numbers if Salvador has 5000 the US should have around 3.8 millions!  

Regarding the "doomsday scenario", the danger I pointed out is about a change at protocol level. If OFAC-obeying miners really wanted to censor addresses without such a protocol change, they would have to 51% attack the network (i.e. reorganizing all chain tips where other miners have found blocks). This would be interpreted as an attack by the market probably, and thus be a serious danger for their business model so incentives work against it. They would rather diversify into other countries again.

They don't need protocol levels for that, some mistake the thing that if 49% would go out there would still be a balance but at some point, more and more coins will come on this side of the fence as business will not allow you to withdraw to addresses not labeled as clean, at one point you won't be able to interact with more any services nor will they want to have anything to do with you.

And it's not even a SF scenario:
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/01/25/south-korean-crypto-exchange-bithumb-will-block-unregistered-wallets/

People will simply dump their govBTC for real BTC, just like they did in 2017, and during many other altcoin wars. Then, the history will just repeat, and you simply won't have 1:1 peg between govBTC and BTC.

Yeah right, just how they ditched the USD for Bitcoin, oh wait, USDT...
People (as in the majority) will dump x over y on a single thing, which will bring them more $, guess what will happen when Coinbase and Binance delist BTC and keep govBTC.
I know it's nice to believe in something and to hope but usually, it only leads to reality hitting you harder.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

When it comes to governments and bitcoin, there are probably a dozen nightmare/doomsday scenarios I could think of if given a few hours.  Bitcoin, banks, and government just don't make good bedfellows and since the creation of bitcoin they weren't ever meant to be.

OP, everything you laid out seems quite plausible and I don't care for the idea of the US or any government buying up substantial amounts of bitcoin.  As of this writing, BTC has a market cap of $1.42T, and the majority of it could be purchased by a consortium of countries if they wished to do it damage.  On the other hand, that would be a serious waste of their (taxpayers') money since it would drive down the value, and one would hope citizens would at least grumble loudly about it.

But even if a government targeted bitcoin through ownership, that would most likely just drive people to the next best altcoin--whatever that might be.  If they really wanted to throw a spanner in the works, all they'd have to do is pass legislation focused on mining, "tainted" coins, or whatever they can think of.  They make all the laws, right?  That way they wouldn't have to spend a single cent buying and owning bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, which is a much riskier play as far as I can see.

That still wouldn't stop people from breaking laws, and governments know that.  Just like tobacco and alcohol, they're probably going to find a way to tax the shit out of bitcoin.

So glad bitcoin doesn't have a DAO.

[letteredhub]

States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.

Thank Goodness you raised this topic was starting to think like didn't no one notice it? Infact emphasis of that statement being In bold.
Bitcoin is a decentralised currency yeah we all know but let's  not forget the fact that the decentralisation of the bitcoin network is based on majority meaning chances have it that bitcoin can be forcefully centralised.

Starting from mining which runs on a 51% rule to fees  which is dependent on average transaction fees in that block to even then whole bitcoin price which depends on selling and buying rates that in turn is dependent on major holders and whales.

Take for example Bitcion crossing over $70k with bitcioners cheering about it then boom the German incident happened and since then bitcoin has been struggling back to $70k which was almost a new low.

The fact is what really can anyone do???
The only thing is bitcioners can try to hold as much as they can hopefully the government doesn't get hold of enough coins to violently shake the market.

Hopefully bitcoin doesn't turn out like diamond that was over time accumulated and is currently run by a single body.

Not that am wishing but bitcoin could be headed in that direction if many individual bitcoiners don't cultivate the hodling culture even in bad times. If we check carefully we will discover that most of these bitcoin that are in government wallet were BTC that they have been holding for almost decade even though some were confiscated just like the German government. Some bitcoin hodler are in a hurry to sale at every circle that comes with the bullrun but does the government also sale in such a hurry? I am not sure. So maybe we should intensify emphasis on the HODLing campaign among we bitcoiners because that's the only way we don't let the government get hold of such amount of bitcoin that could make them gain that much power to interrupt the equilibrium.

[shield132]

Some Bitcoiners seem to be enthusiastic about plans by politicians to buy or hold big amounts of Bitcoin as part of a "strategic reserve". In particular, Kennedy's announcement that in the (extremely unlikely) case he wins the US election he could buy up to four million Bitcoins as a strategic reserve.

I don't like this idea for the following reason:

States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.

Let's see the following hypothetical scenario:

- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.

A similar scenario was already discussed for ETFs. But ETFs would never hold so many coins as some are desiring for states/governments to hold, and also their customers could react, so for ETFs I don't see this danger. Up to 1 million, even 2 millions of BTC hold be states/governments/central banks would still not be something to be worried about. But if all bigger states try to buy millions, then it could become really dangerous.

I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

It's very stupid from any government except very small ones to hold millions of Bitcoins. First of all, the number of Bitcoins will only be up to 21 million coins, second of all, up to two million Bitcoins are lost. Kennedy announcing buying of millions of Bitcoins means that every Bitcoin owner will hold every satoshi and price will go to the moon because no one is stupid enough to sell Bitcoin at such a low price when the USA is going to buy 500 every day. This is very disadvantageous for the USA because people will sell it at a very high price and then people will easily move to other coins like Ethereum, Litecoin, Solana or something different and the government will be left with billions of dollars wasted into coin that lost value.

[aoluain]

Some Bitcoiners seem to be enthusiastic about plans by politicians to buy or hold big amounts of Bitcoin as part of a "strategic reserve". In particular, Kennedy's announcement that in the (extremely unlikely) case he wins the US election he could buy up to four million Bitcoins as a strategic reserve.

I don't like this idea for the following reason:

States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.

Let's see the following hypothetical scenario:

- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.

A similar scenario was already discussed for ETFs. But ETFs would never hold so many coins as some are desiring for states/governments to hold, and also their customers could react, so for ETFs I don't see this danger. Up to 1 million, even 2 millions of BTC hold be states/governments/central banks would still not be something to be worried about. But if all bigger states try to buy millions, then it could become really dangerous.

I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.

What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.

It's very stupid from any government except very small ones to hold millions of Bitcoins. First of all, the number of Bitcoins will only be up to 21 million coins, second of all, up to two million Bitcoins are lost. Kennedy announcing buying of millions of Bitcoins means that every Bitcoin owner will hold every satoshi and price will go to the moon because no one is stupid enough to sell Bitcoin at such a low price when the USA is going to buy 500 every day. This is very disadvantageous for the USA because people will sell it at a very high price and then people will easily move to other coins like Ethereum, Litecoin, Solana or something different and the government will be left with billions of dollars wasted into coin that lost value.

I see it completely opposite!

For all the reasons we as Bitcoiners are into Bitcoin doesnt it make sense for
any government to HODL Bitcoin? Primarily the scarcity of it alone would be the
driving factor.

Personally I would never consider abandoning Bitcoin for anything else and I'm sure
I speak for many.

I dont like the idea of governments such as US, China and India buying and HODL'ing
Bitcoin because I can see over time a small number of countries HODL'ing the majority
of coins which would push the price of Bitcoin further out of more peoples access.

While Bitcoin could still remain decentralised, centralised entities could choke the
availability of mined coins.