Switzerland Could Not Even Get 100,000 Signatures to Adopt Bitcoin as Reserves!

[suzanne5223]

To be honest, if such a campaign is launched in the US despite President Trump's positive stance towards Bitcoin, the result will not be encouraging.
I am saying this based on experience that whatever we want to do as a leader of a firm or organization, we should just go for it, so far its a good decision, rather than seeking public opinion, which will make it impossible due to the level of some people's misunderstanding about Bitcoin.
I believe the SNB leader doesn't want the organization to adopt BTC as a reserve asset

[arwin100]

To be honest, if such a campaign is launched in the US despite President Trump's positive stance towards Bitcoin, the result will not be encouraging.
I am saying this based on experience that whatever we want to do as a leader of a firm or organization, we should just go for it, so far its a good decision, rather than seeking public opinion, which will make it impossible due to the level of some people's misunderstanding about Bitcoin.
I believe the SNB leader doesn't want the organization to adopt BTC as a reserve asset

Trump is out of the topic, we have seen him very vocal on his support on Bitcoin and if people in Switzerland considering those action they made. Maybe this time we seen them successfully acquired that 100,000 signatures. But they are in different jurisdiction and Trump provably don't have influence there. That's why they struggle to hit their targets.

Maybe they need proper Bitcoin education campaigns to their people so that they can raise awareness on how good Bitcoin as currency, also investment.

At the moment maybe they don't really want to adopt and create their Bitcoin reserve as they are not ready for this, but hopefully soon they consider to tackle this topic and successfully made Bitcoin as their reserve asset.

[dansus021]

hahah I would call the SNB and CNB have a moment The Regret vs. Returns Gap according the data shows that "Michl confirmed that the CNB's internal data shows a 1% allocation acts as a "return optimizer" with almost no impact on the overall risk profile of their $180 billion reserves." While Switzerland debated signatures, but hey its just a Swiss Conservatism. They are historically the last to move on everything

I mean brooo at this point Bitcoin isnt just a MAGIC digital money that it used too, lots and lots of government and companies are going to add bitcoin to their reserves just mark my word. Bhutan and El Salvador, China have their bitcoin even tho isnt a reserve but still US also have one.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I mean brooo at this point Bitcoin isnt just a MAGIC digital money that it used too, lots and lots of government and companies are going to add bitcoin to their reserves just mark my word. Bhutan and El Salvador, China have their bitcoin even tho isnt a reserve but still US also have one.

Bitcoin has yet reached to that adoption level with friendly and deeply engagement of governments and central banks but Bitcoin has already gone a very long discovery and solid growth. It has laid very good foundations for further growth in the future, and it's like the snowball already began many years ago, governments can not stop Bitcoin snowball. Hence, positive effects on Bitcoin adoption will become clearer and bigger over time.

Years ago, having Bitcoin futures or Bitcoin Spot ETFs were big dreams but now it has been available here for us to use. Having these things was not easy but Bitcoin has passed through every hard thing over time very strongly.

[sokani]

I don't even know where there should be a vote by the citizens for the government to create a bitcoin reserve for the country. The officials were elected to take the right decisions for the people, they should know better that bitcoin is a good option for a reserve even if they decide to keep just a single digit percentage of their income. Most of the population of Switzerland may not go with bitcoin because of their conservative nature and their inclination to gold, so conducting such polls will not yield the desired result. However, it is actually a very poor result considering that bitcoin is already heading to mainstream.

I don't really know how the Swiss government runs the country, but while going through some of the comments, someone said the government rarely does anything without consulting the citizens, and I think that's a good one. After all, that's what democracy is all about. It's the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and their opinions in making key decisions shouldn't be discarded. If the Swiss citizens say they don't want to have Bitcoin as a strategic reserve, I don't see it as a big deal. The government shouldn't force it down their throats because a handful of persons think it's a good idea.

[PrivacyG]

Is anyone else kind of conflicted in their mind whether this is a good thing or not?  I see people find it sad or against our principles that this was even an initiative.

Keep in mind.  People who want this adopted as a Reserve clearly want Bitcoin to just grow in its value so they can make more money off of it.  It is pretty much the real world we are living in.  People will not rather use free banking like Bitcoin but use the centralized companies instead who are pretty much a big scam, they do not care about decentralization et cetera, this is why Bitcoin was an idea that came out of the Cypherpunks and not out of people who lived their live like any other average life in this World and were simply intelligent enough to create it.

Although I would say there is also this possibility that the people who had this initiative may have wanted their country to have a Reserve of an Asset that is uncontrollable, requires no planes flying with tons of it around the World, can not be sanctioned the same way Fiat can et cetera.  This is a hopeful thinking but it is worth considering it.

There is a very fine line between having Bitcoin accepted by centralized entities, as in its existence ignored or supported, and Bitcoin being rejected.  We have seen this in the past.  And the main issue is NOT this, I would not give a single damn whether Bitcoin was accepted or rejected by a Government.  I know why I want to own and use Bitcoin and this does not depend on whether my country leader says it is a good idea or not nor does it depend on whether people consider it a scam or not.  But for a very long time Bitcoin had a problem.  Any where you went to read about Bitcoin, you would find mostly articles calling it a scam, a Ponzi scheme, a dying idea et cetera.  And we got rid of that for the most part.  People now WANT to hold Bitcoin and not only this, they want their GOVERNMENT to hold Bitcoin for them as they do not see it as a scam or a dying idea any more.  And I am very conflicted about it.

I would much rather see citizens holding Bitcoin instead of their Government.  After all.  We are not children of a Nanny State and we can go on about our lives with out having the State as an intermediary.  But I believe it IS a step up from where we started.  This was going to happen anyway.  Does any of you imagine a TRILLION Dollar Asset no wealthy eyes are tempted about?  Do you really imagine this kind of Asset ever being left alone for citizens to hold, even if we begged for it?

The problem may not be that some people want their country to also have Bitcoin.  It is like being sad about your State owning property or Gold.  A State owning an Asset that is impossible to control may be a great thing.  That problem is not even in our hands to control.  The problem that we have to control is making sure PEOPLE have Bitcoin too and not for monetary gains but for the same reason many want Gold when times are bad.  Like when a war starts.  Or when a country leader goes crazy and wants to take control over absolutely every thing.  You can not stop Saylor, Trump or anyone else from purchasing significant amounts of Bitcoin and controlling a large portion of the Total Supply.  And again.  This was inevitable.  'Weak' hands will give up their Bitcoin and smarter hands will purchase it.  And even a thousand average smarter hands will be nothing compared to a Multi Billion Dollar smart hand who purchases thousands of Bitcoin in one run.  It is what it is and no matter what we do, the more Bitcoin grows the more Billion Dollar hands will step up and join the competition over who owns more and who is the Richest.

I do not know what to think.  Is it a good thing that we are sad about people wanting Bitcoin to join a national Reserve?  Is the State not looking at Bitcoin as a safe Asset a good thing?  If you ask me, I would say that with the growth of Bitcoin we have seen about the same amount of people wanting Bitcoin simply for profits BUT the good thing is that we see more people actually becoming interested in Cypherpunks, decentralization, freedom, security et cetera.  Even if that number is still small and almost insignificant, if it keeps growing it is a great thing.  And while we are sad about people 'begging' for a Bitcoin Reserve I do not see the same frustration over Know Your Customer, centralized Exchanges and all the other measures and companies that pretty much try to add a layer of centralization and control on top of decentralized, free Bitcoin.

So finally.  Is it a step up or a step down that Bitcoin reached this point in its history where it may actually sit next to Gold in the Reserves of an important country?

[d5000]

The problem is that bitcoin, which was initially held only by individuals, has increasingly ended up in the hands of centralised entities, and that is because people have sold it without a second thought for profit. Now there is no turning back; the bitcoin held by ETFs or certain states or companies is not going to return to private individuals. Rather than wondering what the world would be like if it were not as it is, it is better to adapt to the way it is. And in that world, there is still a place for Bitcoin used by individuals and in peer-to-peer transactions, but it is very small.

I'm not so sure about the automatism you're describing.

Bitcoin's current trend into centralized ownership is fueled by two things: its volatility and the sense that it is now an "established" asset (where regulation contributed hugely). It's normal that centralized entities want to participate from that boom, and thus I've already described the current trend into custodianship as somewhat "inevitable".

However, this trend not necessarily is eternal. It's possible that we're already quite close to the peak of centralized custodianship.

There are several reasons, some are already a reality, and some can be expected or at least are a possibility for the future:

1) Falling volatility. That is a reality, as we've discussed. Once Bitcoin is less volatile than stocks some of the ETF investors will probably leave, because they want and need higher returns. That would lead to net outflows over a longer time than the short "dips" we've seen in the last 2 years, and could lead into a peak in ETF ownership.
2) If the volatility reduction leads to the bear markets being less harsh -- if 60,000 was the bottom, then this is already the case -- then retailers will be less scared of them, and may consider Bitcoin as a long term inflation protection.
3) Better contracts and DeFi on Bitcoin with technologies like Ark and EVM sidechains could make some use cases obsolete where centralized ownership is needed.
4) Propagation of the NYKNYC principle among retailers. I believe this to be slow but if the trend continues the exchange holdings would fall.

Governments' interest as a strategic reserve could also decline if volatility reduces, although they don't need as much volatility as the typical ETF investor. But at least that narrative that "we have to jump on the train before others do" could wane away.

It is possible that if Bitcoin is eventually perceived as a serious gold competitor, the tendency into centralized deposits could again increase if it leads to another volatility spike. But this spike would also be temporary (maximum 5 years, I think).

[Lucius]

Bitcoin is supposed to be a decentralized cryptocurrency and it's sad to see people who want it stored in central bank vaults.

Finally a real Bitcoiner Bitcoin is for the people, not for the State!

You can even see a strategic reserve as a kind of Trojan Horse: The state wants to hold the Bitcoins which normally should belong to you -- to continue to scam you with fiat and money printing

It's short-sighted to beg the State to buy your Bitcoins for your profit. The State (and alliances of governments/central banks) can do horrible things with that power (imagine a FATF Bitcoin Alliance). It's better if every citizen of the world held 10,000 satoshis for example. That's an amount everybody could afford, above all if they're bought in bear markets and crypto winters.

Unfortunately, I think strategic Bitcoin reserves are kinda inevitable at this stage. But I applaud all countries who decide against it - and instead facilitate acquisition of Bitcoin by their citizens instead

People who advocate these ideas or want something like this to happen are pushing in the exact opposite direction from what Satoshi envisioned Bitcoin to be. However, as some others have already written, we should not be surprised by this, because most only want profit and I dare say they have never used Bitcoin as a currency.

I have written many times about how, for the first time in history, we ordinary people had the opportunity to become the owners of something valuable and superior, while the rich for the first ten years of Bitcoin's existence mostly told the same story and waited for it to fail. The only consolation we can have is that they are now paying a very high price for every coin they buy, and I hope they will pay even more in the future.

I also hope that not too many countries will go in the direction of creating strategic reserves with BTC, especially not like the US and some other countries did with confiscated coins. Bitcoin is for people, not for states and greedy rich people who will squeeze it like a lemon and throw it in the trash can.

[Zlantann]

To be honest, if such a campaign is launched in the US despite President Trump's positive stance towards Bitcoin, the result will not be encouraging.
I am saying this based on experience that whatever we want to do as a leader of a firm or organization, we should just go for it, so far its a good decision, rather than seeking public opinion, which will make it impossible due to the level of some people's misunderstanding about Bitcoin.
I believe the SNB leader doesn't want the organization to adopt BTC as a reserve asset

Some countries are so highly democratic that the government usually seeks the views of the people regarding a proposed law. The government cannot just impose a law without the approval of the legislature or the people through a referendum.

The US has a large population of Bitcoin supporters. I think they would get the required signature in the US if the campaign is well coordinated. The head of the Swiss National Bank (SNB), Martin Schlegel, has always opposed setting up a Bitcoin reserve, complaining of its volatility and insufficient market depth.

[stompix]

~

Based on the source Who are Switzerland’s crypto investors? it is known that more than 23% of the population already have cryptocurrency in their portfolio. This was way back in 2024 almost 20 months back. The campaign to collect signatures have begun 18 months back. The time frame looks close. This Survey was taken among 6000 people and the sample looks good. 23% of Switzerland population goes close to 2 million. Among them they weren't able to collect 100k signatures. It is true that crypto adoption is happening, but in a much slower phase.

Or, or, here me out?
The 23% was pulled from you know what, a survey with a clear target and paid by a crypto project! So biased to the core!
An online survey on YouGov, where people are paid for their opinions, is next asking people on Fiverr if they use a computer 

The 24% is BS, counting out old people and under 16 you would be left with half of the adult population owning crypto, get serious!

23,131,298 addresses with more than $100 in BTC worldwide, and you think Switzerland has let's say 1 million of it, assuming the other 1.3m own crypto but not BTC?

[suzanne5223]

Maybe they need proper Bitcoin education campaigns to their people so that they can raise awareness on how good Bitcoin as currency, also investment.

I don't think that's the case.
For the record, Switzerland is one of the countries that is proactively supportive of Bitcoin education through academia and local hubs. They hosted one of the Europe's most influential Bitcoin/crypto events (an example is Crypto Valley), and their stance towards Bitcoin makes every Bitcoiners sees Swiss as an innovation friendly nation.

At the moment maybe they don't really want to adopt and create their Bitcoin reserve as they are not ready for this, but hopefully soon they consider to tackle this topic and successfully made Bitcoin as their reserve asset.

This could be the only reason, and that's why i said they don't just want to adopt Bitcoin reserve

[Floxynice]

Do you think if a similar campaign were launched in your country, advocates there could manage to get 100,000 people to sign? Or is public interest in Bitcoin still too minor for that kind of constitutional change in your country?

I doubt that we would get up to 100,000 people to sign in favour of Bitcoin in my country. This is not necessarily out of hatred for Bitcoin, but because of poor knowledge of Bitcoin or a total lack of knowledge about it.

Many people in my country do not really understand what Bitcoin is. It is quite unfortunate that even up till today, some people still think Bitcoin is a scam. There is no way the political leaders will give consent to a Bitcoin reserve without proper understanding. Much effort will have to be put into trying to convince them to accept Bitcoin and to properly educate them on what it is.

As for Switzerland, it is their loss. In years to come, they may realise that they made a big mistake, and by that time, they may not need any signatures to make decisions concerning Bitcoin.

[monetizator4]

Switzerland has indeed shown strong support for crypto education, but that doesn't guarantee immediate widespread adoption. The SNB's hesitation might stem from broader financial and regulatory considerations rather than just public awareness. Still, the country's forward-looking attitude is encouraging for Bitcoin enthusiasts

[BlackHatCoiner]

You can even see a strategic reserve as a kind of Trojan Horse: The state wants to hold the Bitcoins which normally should belong to you -- to continue to scam you with fiat and money printing

That's not a good take. The State confiscates property regardless on whether it plans to create a strategic reserve or not. Governments must own at least half million bitcoin, just from confiscations alone, and they would continue stealing from everyone through money printing and capital gains tax.

A strategic reserve does not render bitcoin as worse as a store-of-value than before the strategic reserve, which is what it ultimately matters. The opposite, as now it is also the governments that want to buy what Bitcoin users own. A strategic reserve would significantly increase the liquidity on the bitcoin market, which would further increase the price and make the value proposition even clearer.

[tygeade]

To be honest, if such a campaign is launched in the US despite President Trump's positive stance towards Bitcoin, the result will not be encouraging.
I am saying this based on experience that whatever we want to do as a leader of a firm or organization, we should just go for it, so far its a good decision, rather than seeking public opinion, which will make it impossible due to the level of some people's misunderstanding about Bitcoin.
I believe the SNB leader doesn't want the organization to adopt BTC as a reserve asset

It is not "despite" trump being pro-bitcoin that people would be against it, its literally for that reason. I am in a group that is not regards to crypto at all, its a chat group for something that is entirely different, and there are mostly Americans there, and the reason why they hate crypto is because trump likes it, and people like trump, like tate, like rogan and whatever else.

Basically it is a "republican" thing to like bitcoin nowadays and they hate it because of that specific reason. So if trump was anti-crypto then we would see the same people love bitcoin instead. When you have a president liking something, you get half of the country like it and the other half of the country hate it, no matter what the topic is.

[Faisal2202]

Is anyone else kind of conflicted in their mind whether this is a good thing or not?  I see people find it sad or against our principles that this was even an initiative.
---
So finally.  Is it a step up or a step down that Bitcoin reached this point in its history where it may actually sit next to Gold in the Reserves of an important country?

Sorry, privacyg, but I have to ask, are you trying to be the next JayJuanGee haha because of the post word count?  

I read it all, and I can't agree more with you because the cypherpunk angle is completely right, but the majority wanted it to be accepted because that looked like the only way to increase adoption. Institutions and governments investing in Bitcoin will make other people adopt it too. But the majority is here for profit. The point you and several other members are representing is not even on their minds. They don't care about its decentralized nature. They are just here for profit.

The points you wrote are too many for me to agree with all of them by explaining them briefly, so I would just say I can't agree more because that's the reality.

But it was inevitable, and now we have to survive. At least it is not dead,

[d5000]

A strategic reserve does not render bitcoin as worse as a store-of-value than before the strategic reserve, which is what it ultimately matters.

My logic is the following: Central banks need strategic reserves to sustain their fiat. If they switch from gold to Bitcoin, or add Bitcoin to their portfolios, they want to strengthen their fiat currencies with an asset that could increase in price, and thus increase the trust on the USD/EUR/whatever.

So a strategic reserve of BTC is a statement that they won't abandon fiat, at the contrary: they want to increase its value.

A strategic reserve would significantly increase the liquidity on the bitcoin market, which would further increase the price and make the value proposition even clearer.

This is only true while the strategic reserve is growing. It can however also be sold, like some countries have sold gold in the past decades.

My problem with this is that Central Banks could make their policy (buy, sell or stay idle) depend on the features Bitcoin adds. If it's something the State doesn't like - they could switch to "sell" mode, or support a hard fork. The example I always bring up for this would be a privacy enhancement, like MWEB for Litecoin.

If that leads to turmoil in the Bitcoin market, the store of value function would be weakened. Thus, strategic reserves, in my opinion, add risk to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[bg002h]

I genuinely hope they have fun staying poor.

[OcTradism]

This is only true while the strategic reserve is growing. It can however also be sold, like some countries have sold gold in the past decades.

My problem with this is that Central Banks could make their policy (buy, sell or stay idle) depend on the features Bitcoin adds. If it's something the State doesn't like - they could switch to "sell" mode, or support a hard fork. The example I always bring up for this would be a privacy enhancement, like MWEB for Litecoin.

If that leads to turmoil in the Bitcoin market, the store of value function would be weakened. Thus, strategic reserves, in my opinion, add risk to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

When big nations join this industry, they will escalate regulations on this industry because governments always want to control citizens as most as possible and big nations with strong economy, hard and soft power often try to set up games and control the rest of world as much as they can do.

Bitcoin market cap and Bitcoin market trading volume are still very small compares to traditional markets and big nations won't hesitate in selling, dumping their bitcoins in national reserves if they feel it is a necessary action because market dumps won't affect their nation budget too much but such market crashes even in short term will affect retailed investors and traders in Bitcoin market.

[legiteum]

This is only true while the strategic reserve is growing. It can however also be sold, like some countries have sold gold in the past decades.

Exactly this. People here are begging that Bitcoin's price be controlled by the whims of politics. It's absolutely crazy. Trump makes Bitcoin go up, then the most unpopular president in US history and his party get ejected by the voters and they throw out everything remotely connected to them, including Bitcoin and it falls by 98% in value.

But that's okay, the crypto industry was the largest single industry campaign contributor in the last national election, so They Know What They Are Doing^TM, right?

Live by the sword, die by the sword. That's what asking for government intervention into your market means.