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

[Rustam Meraj]

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.

Now we are heading towards Sovereign Game Theory, so if one country sells at lower price to make its supply cheaper, it will be subsidizing entry of its geopolitical rivals who are seeking to accumulate at cheaper rates. Moreover, comparison between Bitcoin market cap and traditional fiat market is also reason for high volatility. But as Bitcoin matures into worldwide reserve asset, depth of order books will come to be increasingly difficult for even big country to move prices around without damaging its own balance sheet. That real danger is not just market dump, it is regulatory capture, powerful countries trying to push KYC at protocol level, trying to reduce pseudonimity and what makes bitcoin tool for individual financial sovereignty.

[snowpega]

...
Their loss, because there will be two kinds of people, one with regret and the other with Bitcoins. They chose to be in regret. It is not bearish news, if anyone thinks that it is, because so far Bitcoin does not need SNB's support and it can do better even without them.
...

I really don't know much about Switzerland's population, GDP, and its people's literacy rate. Like, if they have good GDP growth with a good literacy rate, then I think they will adopt Bitcoin for their national strategic reserve sooner or later. No matter if they are not adding it yet. But with the passage of time, where we know the adoption of bitcoin is increasing heavily then those countries that are still neglecting it under some reason will start to adopt it for thire ecomny growth.

I think if the US passes the crypto clarity bills, then the adoption of bitcoin will increase massively, and seeing this, many other countries will jump into this race of owning as much as bitcoin as they can. Cryptospace has already started getting many positive signals for its easy adoption, where it has been legalized in different regions of the globe for a friendly crypto ecosystem. So, let's see how long it will take for Switzerland to adopt Bitcoin.

[Z-tight]

Their loss, because there will be two kinds of people, one with regret and the other with Bitcoins. They chose to be in regret. It is not bearish news, if anyone thinks that it is, because so far Bitcoin does not need SNB's support and it can do better even without them.

I hate it when certain bitcoiners think that if people don't want BTC, they are going to regret it, when that is not always the case. There are a lot of other investments and assets that people would choose over BTC and that is fine; it is their choice and it could be a good one for them. Take note that individuals and institutions have been investing successfully, long before BTC was created.

Would i have added my signature if i was in the country? Yes. Do i think it would be nice to add BTC in their sheets? Yes. But the people didn't want it, and that is that. No need to make it look like karma is coming for them.  

[Catenaccio]

I hate it when certain bitcoiners think that if people don't want BTC, they are going to regret it, when that is not always the case. There are a lot of other investments and assets that people would choose over BTC and that is fine; it is their choice and it could be a good one for them. Take note that individuals and institutions have been investing successfully, long before BTC was created.

It's bad for them if they ignore Bitcoin and don't want to have Bitcoin but even if they want to have Bitcoin and decide to take action, there are other challenges. Like they must know how to do things rightly, from buying, storing and backing up their wallets. All these steps must be done rightly to make sure that they actually purchase bitcoins, and don't be scammed, lost money while don't have bitcoins; and must backup, test backup for having resources used for wallet recovery in the future.

So it's not easy like if people invest money in Bitcoin, all of them will have profit, it depends on many things, even more than things aforementioned.

[Satofan44]

Well, another proof that all those numbers about hundreds of millions of crypto users are just rubbish.

According to different sources, Switzerland is credited with 2.5 to 4.5% so called Bitcoin owners, that would be something like 250k to 450k people.
Of course, highly possible that not all owners signed up for that, also the same possibility for some owners getting their friends and relatives to sing it despite them not owning a satoshi.

I sincerely doubt that the number of so-called Bitcoin users and owners are not inflated by at least one order of magnitude as we speak!

With this you mean to stipulate that if I am a Bitcoin owner, I am supposed to sign whatever nonsense someone wants to do as long as it is related to Bitcoin or is alleged to have some benefit to Bitcoin? That is now how a reasonable person's brain works, that is how a cultist and 3rd world undeveloped brain works. I can be a Bitcoin owner and at the same time not want to bank to adopt it as a reserve. To make any baseless conclusions on the data regarding the estimated number of users solely using this piece of news is just dumb. There could be any number of reasons for which they failed to get the signatures (aside from the example that I have demonstrated) which have nothing to do with the number of Bitcoin users in Switzerland. It could be simply a badly run campaign. Just because the idea is big and favorable, that does not mean that the organizers are competent and ran a good campaign.

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!

Claiming this is anti-Bitcoin though. Bitcoin provides opportunity and freedom of access to everyone, including the State. You may not like the State, but it has an equal right to Bitcoin as each individual person does. 

Lol, they can get that much easily within the youth of my our country, because almost 7 out of 10 people from our youth are already into these things, because they are mostly into things such as freelancing and online jobs, so they are always looking for ways that can make things easy for them like receiving payments from their international clients, which can't be easier than asking them to buy and send bitcoins or cryptocurrencies, because it makes the process extremely easy, and they don't have to go through all the hassle that banks put them through when they receive funds from outside the country.

Using it as a means to an end has nothing to do with actually supporting it or understanding it, that is why so many 3rd world people are tricked by all sorts of shitcoins and scams. Most of them literally do not care what Bitcoin offers and how different it is from some random shitcoin. They will adopt some shitcoin scam as long as they can personally benefit from it even at the expense of others. Learn the difference between people who are actual supporters and those who are merely using it as a means to an end (they couldn't care less).

[philipma1957]

The Swiss National Bank (SNB) was going to add Bitcoin as a reserve asset to its balance sheet. The proposal goes way back and started in 2021. At that time, a group argued that the SNB was missing a massive opportunity and that it must diversify away from the Euro and US dollar.

SNB did not change its objections against BTC throughout 2022 to 2023. But in 2024, the baton passed to Martin because the leadership was younger and might be more crypto curious, but he actually doubled down on the miner narrative and technical skepticism. He effectively upheld the high bar for the signature collection campaign,

He said, get 100,000 signatures and we will trigger the constitutional referendum, but after an effort of 18 months, they were only able to get 50,000 signatures, and now they have hit the wall and won't be adding Bitcoin to their reserves.

On the other hand, Czech National Bank is moving forward without needing any public vote. The governor, Ales Michl, recently confirmed at the Bitcoin 2026 event that their internal data shows a 1% BTC allocation has optimized the returns without much risk. While Switzerland waits for the signatures, the Czechs are already running a two year test portfolio.

Their loss, because there will be two kinds of people, one with regret and the other with Bitcoins. They chose to be in regret. It is not bearish news, if anyone thinks that it is, because so far Bitcoin does not need SNB's support and it can do better even without them.

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?

well maybe swiss is correct and btc will get killed off.

i can see the mining issue of only 1 million coins left as an issue.

heck in 2036 only 125000 coins left to mine

and in 2048 only 15,000 coins left to mine

this makes fear.

[Lucius]

well maybe swiss is correct and btc will get killed off.

i can see the mining issue of only 1 million coins left as an issue.

heck in 2036 only 125000 coins left to mine

and in 2048 only 15,000 coins left to mine

this makes fear.

The fact is that in 5-6 years only 1% (210 000 BTC) will be left for mining, but this is a number that will stretch for the next 100+ years. When you mention "fear", who exactly do you mean - miners, companies like BlackRock or ordinary people?

I think that miners with their share of new coins (about 450 BTC per day) no longer play a big role in any pressure on the market and price formation. In addition, some of these miners have already found a new source of income - AI.

[tbct_mt2]

The fact is that in 5-6 years only 1% (210 000 BTC) will be left for mining, but this is a number that will stretch for the next 100+ years. When you mention "fear", who exactly do you mean - miners, companies like BlackRock or ordinary people?

I think that miners with their share of new coins (about 450 BTC per day) no longer play a big role in any pressure on the market and price formation. In addition, some of these miners have already found a new source of income - AI.

Most Bitcoin miners don't hold their bitcoins for a long time, and they mostly have pressure of equilibrium to sell their coins with time for paying mining operation costs. With less bitcoins for mining in coming years while more institutional investors joining the market, the accumulation pressure is bigger than future supplies, hence institutional investors will feel fearful that they are later than the others.

It's like fear of losing in "the end game" fight with the other institutional investors, like Saylor said that he consider "Bitcoin is the end game". I don't like how Saylor and Strategy used too much leverages but his saying is just right.

[Satofan44]

well maybe swiss is correct and btc will get killed off.

Nonsense, that is not an implication of the results of this campaign. I have already explained that you can't draw conclusions solely from a campaign not reaching enough signatures, you can't even draw the conclusion that people don't support this without having additional data and context. You're not familiar with the scientific method like most users, are you?

i can see the mining issue of only 1 million coins left as an issue.

heck in 2036 only 125000 coins left to mine

and in 2048 only 15,000 coins left to mine

this makes fear.

You are old and starting to get paranoid about things that are not an issue. Bitcoin runs just fine with a much lower hash rate and quantity of miners. It does not need an endlessly increasing hash rate, it was always like this. You all praised deflation in issuance before and now you want to make the same deflation into a boogeyman. You personally may not even live to see it become an issue, so why spread around FUD?   One day it is OP_RETURN spam, the other day it is quantum nonsense, the next day it is the remaining coins to mine, and so it goes -- always finding reasons to worry and panic, a sign of modern mental disease that most people have.

When you mention "fear", who exactly do you mean - miners, companies like BlackRock or ordinary people?

He means himself and a few other loons that are paranoid about all kinds of things that have no basis in reality, you forget that he is part of the people that think OP_RETURN will be a near fatal blow to Bitcoin soon even if literally nothing has changed in the ability to store OP_RETURNs. 99.9% of people involved in Bitcoin are not afraid of this. Read this, the clock is ticking. The reality is that yes most people should shut up and have no opinions on anything, and the world would be better off -- regardless of whether one is too much of a coward to admit this.

I think that miners with their share of new coins (about 450 BTC per day) no longer play a big role in any pressure on the market and price formation. In addition, some of these miners have already found a new source of income - AI.

The difficulty adjustment has been introduced not solely for infinitely upward adjustments, it is happily accepting long periods of downward adjustment and Bitcoin would just be fine.

[legiteum]

Claiming this is anti-Bitcoin though. Bitcoin provides opportunity and freedom of access to everyone, including the State. You may not like the State, but it has an equal right to Bitcoin as each individual person does. 

The State is drastically different and equating a State action with free-market action by individuals is... basically communism. And the State doesn't have Rights, which is pure nonsense and betrays a complete lack of understanding as to what a "right" is. Rights are individual. There is no such thing as a "collective right", comrade.

States get their money from compelled taxes. In other words, their power comes from a gun pointed at people's heads: don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. A private actor needs to convince customers who are free to either buy or not buy.

Today, in China, companies owed by the Chineses Communist Party "compete" with private companies but that is not free market competition. If the CPC's company doesn't provide a product that consumers want, and a competitor wins in the marketplace, the CPC doesn't improve their product, they just put the competitor's owners in jail (or tax them, or regulate them, or whatever).

The State buying Bitcoin means that citizens will be compelled, by force, to buy Bitcoin. In other words, "help us buy more Bitcoin or go to prison". This is the very opposite of the "free-market ideology" that originally drove the Bitcoin's popularity.

And besides the moral argument, there's the practical one: you are basically asking that the price of Bitcoin be decided by popular vote, not the free market. This might seem like a great idea the moment since the US president owns a bunch of Bitcoin and orders the State to prop up the price. But this is a highly short-sighted strategy: Trump and his party won't be in power forever (Trump is historically unpopular now), and the replacement is likely to reverse everything the previous regime did. In other words, President Elizabeth Warren would dump all of the government's Bitcoin the minute she got into office.

Do you really want the State to dictate Bitcoin's price? Seriously?  Demanding they do so is not only contrary to Bitcoin's founding philosophy, it's also really really stupid in the long run.

(For more on libertarian philosophy, the link below contains a great primer on State vs. individual action).

https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/liberty-matters/perspectives-on-mises-socialism-after-100-years

[d5000]

Claiming this is anti-Bitcoin though. Bitcoin provides opportunity and freedom of access to everyone, including the State. You may not like the State, but it has an equal right to Bitcoin as each individual person does. 

It is correct that the State has a "right" to own Bitcoin like any other group.

But should the Bitcoin community applaud that? The general idea behind such a move is normally that the State tries to strengthen its fiat system with such a strategic reserve, and thus continues to commit to an inflationary system.

Things would be only different for me if a State commits to Bitcoin fully, including its property "censorship resistance" and its privacy rights, with strong protections of these items, and abandons the fiat idea. In this case, I'd even be in favour of some kind of "Bitcoin reserve" to counter imbalances in their external trade structure (I'd probably however favour some commodities-based decentralized stablecoin for that though). No, Trump is very far away to do that, same even for El Salvador, although I'm a bit more in favour of the Salvadorean reserve as this State has at least partially committed to Bitcoin as a currency.

[Satofan44]

Claiming this is anti-Bitcoin though. Bitcoin provides opportunity and freedom of access to everyone, including the State. You may not like the State, but it has an equal right to Bitcoin as each individual person does. 

It is correct that the State has a "right" to own Bitcoin like any other group.

I like nuance, so I had to say it.  Misinformation spreads primarily for 2 reasons: illusion of knowledge (majority of humans), and a lack of nuance (majority of humans).  Any entity, individual, group, any kind has a right to Bitcoin -- that is the core principle of Bitcoin.

But should the Bitcoin community applaud that? The general idea behind such a move is normally that the State tries to strengthen its fiat system with such a strategic reserve, and thus continues to commit to an inflationary system.

Well in most cases not, but you have to be specific who you blame. Saying that the state adopting Bitcoin for whatever reason is not great is not the same as blaming individual users for applauding State adoption even when it is done for the reason. Blame the individuals for failing to know the difference between good and bad, not the ones who are adopting it otherwise you are going to end up entirely biased and hypocritical. If you want to blame the State for adoption that is not optimal or claim that it is bad, then I got a very long list of users and entities that you need to blame. A lot of the Bitcoin adoption will be by people or for actions that are considered bad, for example criminal. Fair and nuanced, this is what I require of you.

Things would be only different for me if a State commits to Bitcoin fully, including its property "censorship resistance" and its privacy rights, with strong protections of these items, and abandons the fiat idea. In this case, I'd even be in favour of some kind of "Bitcoin reserve" to counter imbalances in their external trade structure (I'd probably however favour some commodities-based decentralized stablecoin for that though). No, Trump is very far away to do that, same even for El Salvador, although I'm a bit more in favour of the Salvadorean reserve as this State has at least partially committed to Bitcoin as a currency.

Yes, absolutely even if the initial steps do not have to be so drastic in the sense of it could be some gradual pro-Bitcoin decisions. For example, making the use of Bitcoin in any and all legal contracts as trivial as using fiat (which is not the same as legal tender status as some might get this wrong) would be an example of a pro-Bitcoin adoption step. Baby steps is where the real progress comes, and where foundations are built, not from grand gestures.

[philipma1957]

well maybe swiss is correct and btc will get killed off.

Nonsense, that is not an implication of the results of this campaign. I have already explained that you can't draw conclusions solely from a campaign not reaching enough signatures, you can't even draw the conclusion that people don't support this without having additional data and context. You're not familiar with the scientific method like most users, are you?

i can see the mining issue of only 1 million coins left as an issue.

heck in 2036 only 125000 coins left to mine

and in 2048 only 15,000 coins left to mine

this makes fear.

You are old and starting to get paranoid about things that are not an issue. Bitcoin runs just fine with a much lower hash rate and quantity of miners. It does not need an endlessly increasing hash rate, it was always like this. You all praised deflation in issuance before and now you want to make the same deflation into a boogeyman. You personally may not even live to see it become an issue, so why spread around FUD?   One day it is OP_RETURN spam, the other day it is quantum nonsense, the next day it is the remaining coins to mine, and so it goes -- always finding reasons to worry and panic, a sign of modern mental disease that most people have.

When you mention "fear", who exactly do you mean - miners, companies like BlackRock or ordinary people?

He means himself and a few other loons that are paranoid about all kinds of things that have no basis in reality, you forget that he is part of the people that think OP_RETURN will be a near fatal blow to Bitcoin soon even if literally nothing has changed in the ability to store OP_RETURNs. 99.9% of people involved in Bitcoin are not afraid of this. Read this, the clock is ticking. The reality is that yes most people should shut up and have no opinions on anything, and the world would be better off -- regardless of whether one is too much of a coward to admit this.

I think that miners with their share of new coins (about 450 BTC per day) no longer play a big role in any pressure on the market and price formation. In addition, some of these miners have already found a new source of income - AI.

The difficulty adjustment has been introduced not solely for infinitely upward adjustments, it is happily accepting long periods of downward adjustment and Bitcoin would just be fine.

you have no Idea what I think or believe.

and for that matter you are in denial that Swiss fear btc rather than welcome it.

if they welcomed it they would have signed off on 100,000 signatures.

there are 7.8 million adults in Switzerland and only 50,000 people signed off.

so 50,000/7,800,000 is less then 1 percent

0.64 percent to be more exact about 1 of 156 people signed off.

So this to me means

lack of interest
or fear of btc hurting the old ways of money
or fear of btc failing if allowed.




all of the above are valid points when discussing a 1 of 156  signing rate.

note a lack of interest could mean they were not enough volunteers going door to door looking for a sign up.

or that many people were asked to sign and were not interested in BTC



remember that I did not say only 1 of 156 signed the request for a btc reserve. but that is the info given 50,000 signed it and I googled to find

7.8 million adults .

math says 156x50,000=7,800,000 

so only 1 of 156 people signed off which is fucking terrible number .

[legiteum]

So this to me means

lack of interest
or fear of btc hurting the old ways of money
or fear of btc failing if allowed.

It's not any of those things.

I know you all live and breathe Bitcoin everyday, and BTC is no doubt your sole investment in your portfolio, but that's not the case for just about everybody else outside of the bitcointalk forum. They invest in lots of things like real estate and stocks. For them, Bitcoin is just one possible instrument for investment.

As such, anybody who is fair-minded would ask, "if the State is going to buy Bitcoin to prop up its price, why not every other investment?". It's not fair to just pick Bitcoin and not other cryptos, or stocks, or real estate, or commodities, or... everything else. Obviously all investors want their portfolio to go up in value, so all would wish that the government would pick their investments to prop up.

Imagine if shareholders of Apple got together and said that the State should have a "strategic AAPL reserve". That's how this sounds to a non-bitcoin maxis. That's why they couldn't get even one percent of Swiss voters to agree to this idea. It's obviously unfair. 

[d5000]

Well in most cases not, but you have to be specific who you blame. Saying that the state adopting Bitcoin for whatever reason is not great is not the same as blaming individual users for applauding State adoption even when it is done for the reason.

Yeah, I agree. But the general tendency in these threads is "strategic reserve gud, we go moon!" (in reality, sometimes I get the impression some people want the State to be the "greatest fool" so they can dump their tokens for 1 million/BTC). I haven't really read nuanced posts in this thread unfortunately. So I reserve the right to counter unnuanced stuff with unnuanced stuff sometimes Just to make people think a bit. Not every answer has to be a doctoral thesis.

Where I'm however not nuanced is that it should be clear that a Bitcoin landscape with governments / central banks capturing too much of the supply (>5 million in total for all governments, I'd say) would be very risky regarding the dynamics of a possible "government cartel" influencing Bitcoin development. Even if a single government is pro-Bitcoin and adopts a strategic reserve as part of a pro-Bitcoin policy with strong protections to privacy and censorship resistance, if the political landscape changes, this reserve can turn into a risk. Basically, they'd need to approve a constitutional change for me to approve a millionary reserve for any government or central bank.

But gradual Bitcoin adoption is fine and can justify a small strategic reserve, like in the case of El Salvador.

[legiteum]

Basically, they'd need to approve a constitutional change for me to approve a millionary reserve for any government or central bank.

Why make it that complicated? Why not just lobby Congress to buy 5M BTC and simply dispose of the keys? That way you would ensure that your personal benefits are locked in no matter what.