Bitcoin's impact on which country in the next four years

[hd49728]

True that. There's no doubt that bitcoin is now one of the primary goals major countries to hold as a reserve asset.
It's slowly becoming more valuable than Gold believe it or not. This is why we are seeing the rise of institutional interest in bitcoin.
Those who hold on to their bitcoins will the reap the benefits though. There's only a limited supply and everyone wanna get their hands on bitcoin.
How spicy is that.

Because Bitcoin is very "spicy" with governments and institutional investors, gamblers like Strategy must be very careful. Governments and other institutional investors can not create more bitcoins so if they want to buy bitcoin, especially buy at cheap prices, they will have to make the market crashes, and take over bitcoins from weak investors.

Triggering a market crash, a death spiral on companies like Strategy can be helpful, so Strategy must be very careful with their company's risk management. Otherwise, a death spiral like Terra might happen with Strategy in the future, I am very doubtful about sayings like Strategy will not be liquidated.

[Smack That Ace]

We forget that some countries now have Bitcoin reserve banks or are planning to do so because they see a future possibility of it being a major sovereign geopolitical chip and that makes it the more of a strategic play as a nation to own it as citizens are doing and large corporations are doing too.
Anyone holding more of Bitcoin's shares out of the 21 million cap ultimately wins the wealth and lead status role and that defines a whole new concept of wealth and value on a different level.

True that. There's no doubt that bitcoin is now one of the primary goals major countries to hold as a reserve asset.
It's slowly becoming more valuable than Gold believe it or not. This is why we are seeing the rise of institutional interest in bitcoin.
Those who hold on to their bitcoins will the reap the benefits though. There's only a limited supply and everyone wanna get their hands on bitcoin.
How spicy is that.

I do not deny the potential of Bitcoin, and I also believe that those who hold it will achieve significant financial gains in the future. But I want to say that Bitcoin is currently neither a priority nor part of the financial strategy of any government or central bank. We have not reached that stage yet.

I also do not see any scenario in which Bitcoin becomes a major sovereign geopolitical asset. We can be optimistic about the future of Bitcoin, but we also need to remain realistic.

Finally, I do not think it will surpass gold in market capitalization or replace gold's role in the economy.

[retreat]

I think that Bitcoin will continue to function as a strategic reserve for countries. Because if we hope that it will be legalized as a legal currency, it is unlikely since it will be in contrast to fiat currency which is prioritized by the government. Most likely it will be a strategic reserve that functions like what some countries do now – and that's not just for a 4 year period, but perhaps in the long term in accordance with the objectives of the strategic reserve.

[stompix]

Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and a half, serving as a digital currency and network around the world.

Bitcoin has existed as a digital currency for less than the period you indicated.

The first transaction using Bitcoin as a currency happened in 2009, the last one happened probably seconds ago.
Unless I'm mistaken and this year is not 2026, that makes exactly 17 years of it being used a currency, which is more than one and a half decades.

That country has been investing in BTC for about 6 years, and in that period the public debt increased by some $5 billion, and the poverty rate by about 10% (over 30% in total). At the same time, the country depends on IMF money, which in turn is blackmailing the president into not investing anymore in BTC, and they managed to make it cease to be legal tender.

I've never believed that a country would change economically because of Bitcoin, not in this decade at least, but with El Salvador it's like we hit the jackpot of the worst case we could apply to and expect some results from it. Quite ironically, then there was the talk about CAR, I always wondered which one would be next, South Sudan or Burundi!
To be honest, even Bitcoin showed its limits here, ignoring Bukele's false claims about mining and the Bitcoin City and else, even people from El Salvador discarded it as a way to get remittances from the US, almost everyone saw it as a MG/WU killer and it turned out to be another disappointment.


 

[Agbamoni]

I had never reasoned that it would get to a point where Bitcoin would be used to measure economic power. Like, does it matter if the US has more possession of Bitcoin in its strategic reserve? What is stopping other countries from holding more Bitcoins in their reserve? It has cost the US a large amount to stay in the war with Iran, and yet they were able to get hold of a substantial amount of Bitcoin for the next 20 years. Bitcoin has no control. Other countries are free to hold as many Bitcoins as they want.

[fuguebtc]

I think that Bitcoin will continue to function as a strategic reserve for countries. Because if we hope that it will be legalized as a legal currency, it is unlikely since it will be in contrast to fiat currency which is prioritized by the government. Most likely it will be a strategic reserve that functions like what some countries do now – and that's not just for a 4 year period, but perhaps in the long term in accordance with the objectives of the strategic reserve.

Currently, not many countries have added Bitcoin to their national reserves. Even countries that already hold Bitcoin, such as the United States, mostly hold Bitcoin seized from criminal. They are still not willing to use public fund to buy Bitcoin. This shows that they still have doubts about it and do not fully trust it yet

As long as government  and central bank are still not willing to use public funds to buy Bitcoin the same way they buy gold,  I do not think Bitcoin can be considered a true reserve asset.

[pawanjain]

True that. There's no doubt that bitcoin is now one of the primary goals major countries to hold as a reserve asset.
It's slowly becoming more valuable than Gold believe it or not. This is why we are seeing the rise of institutional interest in bitcoin.
Those who hold on to their bitcoins will the reap the benefits though. There's only a limited supply and everyone wanna get their hands on bitcoin.
How spicy is that.

Because Bitcoin is very "spicy" with governments and institutional investors, gamblers like Strategy must be very careful. Governments and other institutional investors can not create more bitcoins so if they want to buy bitcoin, especially buy at cheap prices, they will have to make the market crashes, and take over bitcoins from weak investors.

Triggering a market crash, a death spiral on companies like Strategy can be helpful, so Strategy must be very careful with their company's risk management. Otherwise, a death spiral like Terra might happen with Strategy in the future, I am very doubtful about sayings like Strategy will not be liquidated.

You're absolutely right there. This does carry a risk for Strategy but then again, it's unlikely to happen.
In a rare case, if bitcoin goes to multi year lows and stays in a bear market for longer than expected then Strategy can get liquidated indeed.
But then again, it's unlikely for bitcoin to perform that bad for a long time.

[dezoel]

I do not deny the potential of Bitcoin, and I also believe that those who hold it will achieve significant financial gains in the future. But I want to say that Bitcoin is currently neither a priority nor part of the financial strategy of any government or central bank. We have not reached that stage yet.

I also do not see any scenario in which Bitcoin becomes a major sovereign geopolitical asset. We can be optimistic about the future of Bitcoin, but we also need to remain realistic.

Finally, I do not think it will surpass gold in market capitalization or replace gold's role in the economy.

I disagree, even the fact that they decided not to sell the coins that they get from seizing, is a huge move from many countries. There are a lot of governments who sell the coins they seize the moment they do, or anytime as soon as they can.

Whereas there are nations like USA , which is a huge country, who holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and not selling it. Sure they did not buy it, but they also did not sell the ones that they had. So that is actually a good improvement.

[Rustam Meraj]

I do not deny the potential of Bitcoin, and I also believe that those who hold it will achieve significant financial gains in the future. But I want to say that Bitcoin is currently neither a priority nor part of the financial strategy of any government or central bank. We have not reached that stage yet.

I also do not see any scenario in which Bitcoin becomes a major sovereign geopolitical asset. We can be optimistic about the future of Bitcoin, but we also need to remain realistic.

Finally, I do not think it will surpass gold in market capitalization or replace gold's role in the economy.

I disagree, even the fact that they decided not to sell the coins that they get from seizing, is a huge move from many countries. There are a lot of governments who sell the coins they seize the moment they do, or anytime as soon as they can.

Whereas there are nations like USA , which is a huge country, who holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and not selling it. Sure they did not buy it, but they also did not sell the ones that they had. So that is actually a good improvement.

From quick sale of stolen crypto assets to obviously and intentionally keeping them on government balance sheets is big, unspoken economic change. Fact that great economies after taking mountain of goods do not want to dump them on open markets is silent message that this is strategically important and will also serve as inflation protection for near future.
This to me is silent gathering pattern and is the beginning of foundation being laid for global government political reserve being laid right under our noses. Not all central banks are officially out in open to offer decentralized systems now, but adding captured supply to permanent treasury reserve will be first step to official state adoption. Changes in structure show asset will have far more significant large scale economic effects than the traditional doubt assumes.

[Smack That Ace]

I do not deny the potential of Bitcoin, and I also believe that those who hold it will achieve significant financial gains in the future. But I want to say that Bitcoin is currently neither a priority nor part of the financial strategy of any government or central bank. We have not reached that stage yet.

I also do not see any scenario in which Bitcoin becomes a major sovereign geopolitical asset. We can be optimistic about the future of Bitcoin, but we also need to remain realistic.

Finally, I do not think it will surpass gold in market capitalization or replace gold's role in the economy.

I disagree, even the fact that they decided not to sell the coins that they get from seizing, is a huge move from many countries. There are a lot of governments who sell the coins they seize the moment they do, or anytime as soon as they can.

Whereas there are nations like USA , which is a huge country, who holds hundreds of thousands of bitcoins and not selling it. Sure they did not buy it, but they also did not sell the ones that they had. So that is actually a good improvement.

That may be considered a major step forward, but it is still not enough to say that Bitcoin has become a national reserve asset.

The United States has not yet purchased any Bitcoin. What is more telling is that this so called strategic Bitcoin reserve is merely an executive order, not a true strategic reserve like gold or oil reserves. If Trump's term ends and next president is not crypto friendly, that executive order could easily be revoked and Bitcoin could be sold off.

There are significant differences between executive order and law. Until congress passes a law to protect those seized Bitcoin, I do not rule out the possibility that they will be sold in the future.

[tbct_mt2]

That may be considered a major step forward, but it is still not enough to say that Bitcoin has become a national reserve asset.

The United States has not yet purchased any Bitcoin. What is more telling is that this so called strategic Bitcoin reserve is merely an executive order, not a true strategic reserve like gold or oil reserves. If Trump's term ends and next president is not crypto friendly, that executive order could easily be revoked and Bitcoin could be sold off.

There are significant differences between executive order and law. Until congress passes a law to protect those seized Bitcoin, I do not rule out the possibility that they will be sold in the future.

The USA has yet bought any bitcoin from their money and add it to their national treasury but at least they stopped selling bitcoins seized from past criminal cases. It's at least a good strategic change and will last till the end of Trump administration and we will have to wait till a next President to see whether this strategy will be remained at least or made better.

If there are two Presidents make it as a bullish trend, I believe that it will no longer have risk of reverse and perhaps something bigger like purchasing bitcoins for the USA national treasury will be approved.

[Nrcewker]

Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and a half, serving as a digital currency and network around the world. Not only that, it is now maintaining the world's economic leadership and maintaining its influence on the global financial system. Many countries in the world are pushing this technological innovation forward to keep the economy in a strong position in the future.

I think we’re just overthinking this a bit. Yes, Bitcoin can be a good asset for a country, but treating it as a method of payment isn’t something most countries would prefer.

We need to understand the economics behind it, Bitcoin has a limited and fixed supply. Therefore, the more Bitcoin a country accumulates, the stronger its strategic position could become. Because of that, implementing it as a payment method doesn’t offer much value.

Yes, different countries are racing to accumulate Bitcoin, which is increasing up its price. However, I don’t think this will create any major impact, at least not over the next four years.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

You need to understand that Bitcoin was created for you and I and not for any country to benefit it's economy, Bitcoin benefits has to happen to the investors so if the government of a country decide to invest in Bitcoin then they will make profit but it should be known that Bitcoin is not fighting to become a legal tender for any country or trying to impose itself on any country.

Bitcoin was created as an alternative to the fiat currency so that'll be the main focus of Bitcoin as it will be useful to the common people like you and I and not to be used as a tool in the hands of the government.

We shouldn't expect Bitcoin to determine the policies of the world instead how we should see it going forward, is like that silent asset that you can use to liberate yourself from the hands of the controlling government.

[Rabata]

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

There is no way to say that Bitcoin will lead any country economically in the next 4 years because in such a short period of time, Bitcoin will not be so valuable that it can change the economic situation of that country. However, Bitcoin is a technology with a limited supply, which is why its demand is sure to increase. If a country considers Bitcoin as a reserve currency, then that country can benefit financially by holding Bitcoin. However, it is wrong to say that a country will take a position of economic leadership only by holding Bitcoin. We consider Bitcoin as a digital currency. It is currently being considered as a store of value. If a country invests a large amount of money in Bitcoin and can hold it for a long time, then the country will benefit financially, but that does not mean that that country will take the leading position in the economy.

[MusaPk]

Currently, not many countries have added Bitcoin to their national reserves. Even countries that already hold Bitcoin, such as the United States, mostly hold Bitcoin seized from criminal. They are still not willing to use public fund to buy Bitcoin. This shows that they still have doubts about it and do not fully trust it yet

As long as government  and central bank are still not willing to use public funds to buy Bitcoin the same way they buy gold,  I do not think Bitcoin can be considered a true reserve asset.

Governments with few exceptions have so far distant themselves from Bitcoin. The reason why governments are not buying Bitcoin is because they have more areas of interest where they were investing for decades with comfort. Bitcoin is very new if we compare it with gold or stock market and will take time before governments will change their minds to buy Bitcoin also. We have to wait and see how how much time it will take before government attitude towards Bitcoin changes because that will help us in finding out that Bitcoin can become a reserve asset for government or not.

[AirdropNexioX]

Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and a half, serving as a digital currency and network around the world. Not only that, it is now maintaining the world's economic leadership and maintaining its influence on the global financial system. Many countries in the world are pushing this technological innovation forward to keep the economy in a strong position in the future.

For many years we have seen Bitcoin mainly as an investment, a means of storing value or a hedge against inflation. But recently, it seems that the focus of the discussion is gradually changing. Bitcoin supporters believe that the country that collects more Bitcoins first will have a strategic advantage in the future. Because someone says "America Has One Move Left To Win The Next 250 Years – And It's Bitcoin | Matt McDonagh" Although I do not see such statements as predictions but as a strategic opinion.

Now the question is whether Bitcoin will be able to maintain the economic leadership, global influence and power of any country in the next 4 years based on its own technology, or is it just a technology that carries the meaning of digital currency and will ultimately remain primarily an investment asset?

Bitcoin journey has been wild and honestly, the conversation keeps changing. At first, most folks just saw it as a speculative investment or a hedge against inflation. Recently, though, there’s a buzz around its potential as a strategic asset for countries like some kind of digital gold rush. Does this mean holding Bitcoin guarantees economic power? Not necessarily. It’s still pretty volatile and a lot of governments haven’t fully figured out how to use it beyond an investment tool. So, while Bitcoin might shape some aspects of the global economy in the next few years, I don’t see it taking over as the single thing that keeps a country on top. Real influence will probably depend on how nations adapt and innovate with it.