Would the US have budgeted for Bitcoin reserve without seized BTC?

[ColdLava40]

So I was replying to this topic and a random thought came to mind. It might sound a bit awkward, but I think it's worth discussing.

The U.S. government didn't acquire its Bitcoin through a Treasury bill or by setting aside money to buy it. Most of the Bitcoin it holds today came from seizures linked to criminal investigations. Only recently did it decide to treat the large portion of those holdings as a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

That got me thinking.. if the U.S. had never seized those Bitcoins in the first place, would it have actually approved a budget to buy Bitcoin and build a national reserve?

Personally, I'm not so sure.

Holding Bitcoin that you already own is a much easier political decision than spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy it. Those are two completely different conversations. One is simply deciding not to sell an asset you already have, while the other is making a deliberate investment in Bitcoin.

This is why I think the question is worth asking.

Many governments still seem uncomfortable with Bitcoin's nature. It is decentralized, difficult to control, and gives people the option to move value outside the traditional banking system. Whether that's seen as a strength or a weakness depends on who you ask.

Maybe governments don't necessarily fear Bitcoin itself. Maybe they are cautious because it challenges parts of the financial system they have controlled for decades. Or maybe they simply aren't convinced that public funds should be used to buy such a volatile asset.

Either way, I wonder if the U.S. would have reached the same decision if those seized Bitcoins had never existed. Would there have been enough political support to approve billions of dollars for a strategic Bitcoin reserve, or did having those seized coins make the decision much easier?

I'd like to hear what others think(just a random thought btw)

[PrivacyG]

I honestly do not know whether it would have been easier or not.  To me it would be the same thing.  In fact.  Maybe seizing an Asset makes you more tempted to sell it for more Dollars than you would be to hold it.  Because from nothing you now got billions of Dollars.

But what about this.  They are not directly purchasing Bitcoin because it would look like a defeat.

In other words.  If all their Bitcoin comes from seizing Assets from crime, it is one thing.  They are simply holding on to what they HAD to seize.  But if they purchased Bitcoin instead then from the outside it looks like they WANT Bitcoin.

[PX-Z]

That got me thinking.. if the U.S. had never seized those Bitcoins in the first place, would it have actually approved a budget to buy Bitcoin and build a national reserve?

...
Either way, I wonder if the U.S. would have reached the same decision if those seized Bitcoins had never existed. Would there have been enough political support to approve billions of dollars for a strategic Bitcoin reserve, or did having those seized coins make the decision much easier?

That could be a different story and a long decision to make on both House, to have a bitcoin reserve when in the first place they don't have it and needs to spend tax payers money.
With the seized funds as strategic reserve regardless the current value of the bitcoin they are still in profit and and its best way decision they made.

Maybe governments don't necessarily fear Bitcoin itself. Maybe they are cautious because it challenges parts of the financial system they have controlled for decades. Or maybe they simply aren't convinced that public funds should be used to buy such a volatile asset.

Mostly and usually, its how they can control the inflow and outflow of the money on the government regardless their investments in 3-5 and 5-10 year. If there's no certainty, they won't risk of investing, loan to invest, or etc.
But for corrupt government, its a different story.

[X-ray]

It would be the same as today, Senator Cynthia Lummis's Bitcoin Act of 2025 to buy 1 million Bitcoin is stagnating with no conversation and no vote has taken place yet.

The proposal will exist to set aside the budget but I doubt it could easily go through.

Maybe they'd be more focused on the Clarity Act and hold off from buying, who knows.

[SilverCryptoBullet]

The U.S. government didn't acquire its Bitcoin through a Treasury bill or by setting aside money to buy it. Most of the Bitcoin it holds today came from seizures linked to criminal investigations. Only recently did it decide to treat the large portion of those holdings as a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

I guess and believe that all their bitcoins are seized coins from criminal cases because there was no news about their own Bitcoin purchases, before and during Trump administration.
Trump has only changed one thing so far, stop selling bitcoins from criminal seizures and nothing more, no purchases with money from the USA government.

It is only an executive order signed by Trump in May 2025.
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Establishes the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile (White House).

That got me thinking.. if the U.S. had never seized those Bitcoins in the first place, would it have actually approved a budget to buy Bitcoin and build a national reserve?

Personally, I'm not so sure.

They will purchase bitcoins when they see it is safe and profitable for their national treasury as well as there are legal foundations for it. They have huge national debt but they still have money for doing many things including purchasing gold for their national treasury, so they can do the same with Bitcoin when they see it is a wise strategy to enforce.

[rat03gopoh]

The facts I know are:

• The US government has never banned Bitcoin;
• The US has aspired to maintain its position as a global technology hub;
• The US is the most active country in combating international crime.

If Bitcoin is considered the most advanced financial technology, it will be adopted as a strategic reserve, one way or another.
However. imagining a scenario where the US will never confiscate Bitcoin is extremely difficult unless criminals never use Bitcoin or the US ceases its global anti-crime operations.

[BitBrainers]

So I was replying to this topic and a random thought came to mind. It might sound a bit awkward, but I think it's worth discussing.

The U.S. government didn't acquire its Bitcoin through a Treasury bill or by setting aside money to buy it. Most of the Bitcoin it holds today came from seizures linked to criminal investigations. Only recently did it decide to treat the large portion of those holdings as a strategic Bitcoin reserve.

That got me thinking.. if the U.S. had never seized those Bitcoins in the first place, would it have actually approved a budget to buy Bitcoin and build a national reserve?

Personally, I'm not so sure.

Holding Bitcoin that you already own is a much easier political decision than spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to buy it. Those are two completely different conversations. One is simply deciding not to sell an asset you already have, while the other is making a deliberate investment in Bitcoin.

This is why I think the question is worth asking.

Many governments still seem uncomfortable with Bitcoin's nature. It is decentralized, difficult to control, and gives people the option to move value outside the traditional banking system. Whether that's seen as a strength or a weakness depends on who you ask.

Maybe governments don't necessarily fear Bitcoin itself. Maybe they are cautious because it challenges parts of the financial system they have controlled for decades. Or maybe they simply aren't convinced that public funds should be used to buy such a volatile asset.

Either way, I wonder if the U.S. would have reached the same decision if those seized Bitcoins had never existed. Would there have been enough political support to approve billions of dollars for a strategic Bitcoin reserve, or did having those seized coins make the decision much easier?

I'd like to hear what others think(just a random thought btw)

The seized Bitcoin removed the hardest political obstacle: spending taxpayer money. Holding what you already own is easy. Buying it with public funds is a different conversation entirely and nobody in Washington wants to have it.

They don't believe in Bitcoin. They believe in the price. If it ever seriously threatened dollar dominance they would move against it without hesitation. The reserve is a hedge, not a conviction.

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve holds zero purchased Bitcoin. Every coin in it was seized from criminals. The blockchain does not know the difference. The asset worked the same for everyone.

The way I see it, they risked exactly nothing to get there. The people who actually believed in Bitcoin went to prison, got their coins seized, or got regulated out of existence. The government showed up after the work was done and called it a strategy.

The protocol won. The ideology is getting absorbed.

[coinrifft]

I initially thought that when Trump says about Bitcoin reserve, the US is going to "buy" it. Nevertheless, perhaps many of us might have fallen for that trick as what they consider reserve is just seized Bitcoin from criminals.

So with that, I don't think that they will have a budget for a Bitcoin reserve. It's a bit tricky in the beginning, but now it's very clear that they are not going into that direction. And just imagine if the next US president will be like Biden, against Bitcoin and crypto in general. So there will be no continuity of this so called Bitcoin reserve.

[purple_sparkles]

I think it all depends on the attitude of politicians. If today or tomorrow it becomes beneficial for them to adopt bitcoin and buy it for the USA strategic reserve, they will do it. As always, there has to be something in it for them. In the best-case scenario, everything will stay as it is. In the worst-case scenario, obstacles could be created for ordinary citizens to use bitcoin, as is already happening in some countries. Although now is a time when the economies of many countries are in very poor condition, and the USA is also suffering losses related to the global military and geopolitical situation. To keep the country's economy strong, they may vote to buy bitcoin, since at the moment it is apolitical. Also, now seems to be a good time to buy it at a favorable price.

[Sowat]

I think it all depends on the attitude of politicians. If today or tomorrow it becomes beneficial for them to adopt bitcoin and buy it for the USA strategic reserve, they will do it. As always, there has to be something in it for them. In the best-case scenario, everything will stay as it is. In the worst-case scenario, obstacles could be created for ordinary citizens to use bitcoin, as is already happening in some countries. Although now is a time when the economies of many countries are in very poor condition, and the USA is also suffering losses related to the global military and geopolitical situation. To keep the country's economy strong, they may vote to buy bitcoin, since at the moment it is apolitical. Also, now seems to be a good time to buy it at a favorable price.

The adoption of Bitcoin from political aspects is expected to be based on the economic and strategic gains. Governments normally base decisions on how they can gain from them financially and strategically. In case Bitcoin turns out to be of great help in stabilizing their reserve and dealing with economic problems, then some governments may opt to increase their participation. The regulations and policies regarding Bitcoin may vary in the future. What matters most is that Bitcoin is an evolving technology in the financial world.

[Curious T]

The US does not have a Bitcoin reserve. No matter how many times people call it a reserve, it won't make it a reserve. The US has what many countries with big economies have, which are seized Bitcoins. The US just happen to be the country with the most of it because they are the biggest economy. The difference between the US and China in this regard is that the US president made an executive order that Bitcoin should not be sold. That order can only hold during his tenure. If another person takes office today, he can sign another executive order that revokes the previous one. That would not be possible if it were a federal reserve because it would have been a bill that was passed, voted on and approved by Congress.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

I don't think so.

The only time that you see United States have lay upon Bitcoin is from the seized asset from different scam-related issues, all their assets are confiscated coins and that is why they are not seeing or taken as bitcoin investors, but instead, you can always refer to United State as holders, but they never invested for once in Bitcoin as a government, all within their capacity are confiscated assets.

[Luzin]

How the US handles the crypto law through the Clarity Act could clearly show that there will be intense debates. Even President Trump had to pressure the opposition party in the Senate to get it passed quickly. The process is long and won’t be easy. The same goes for proposals to allocate certain budgets specifically for buying. This situation will also create the risk of political criticism and risky public fund usage. Holding onto seized assets seems safer. Remember, the US is currently trying to tackle inflation. So, they probably won’t speculate with Bitcoin. They would start from scratch if they plan to buy, and this will impact political, fiscal, and public trust conditions. IMO

[BALIK]

The US does not have a Bitcoin reserve. No matter how many times people call it a reserve, it won't make it a reserve. The US has what many countries with big economies have, which are seized Bitcoins. The US just happen to be the country with the most of it because they are the biggest economy. The difference between the US and China in this regard is that the US president made an executive order that Bitcoin should not be sold. That order can only hold during his tenure. If another person takes office today, he can sign another executive order that revokes the previous one. That would not be possible if it were a federal reserve because it would have been a bill that was passed, voted on and approved by Congress.

Exactly. The US strategic Bitcoin reserve is simply an executive order signed by the current President. That means it could be modified or repealed at any time with a different signature from Trump or the next president. This is not an Act passed by Congress, so it cannot be called a national reserve like gold or oil.

That is why they cannot use even a single dollar from the federal budget or taxpayers' money to buy more Bitcoin, even though the Trump administration has repeatedly said it would look for ways to acquire more BTC.

To be precise, the Trump administration cannot buy more BTC, not that it does not want to. Without seized Bitcoin, there would be no so called strategic Bitcoin reserve.

[buwaytress]

99% no.

This "budget-neutral" policy was the best they could ask for. Even under Trump, the regime has always said it'll never come from tax money. So yes, this can always be repealed but which other president or admin has a bigger want for it?

[retreat]

Even with a strategic Bitcoin reserve already established, it's still quite difficult for the Bitcoin Act and American Reserves Modernization Act to pass, especially when there's still no official strategic Bitcoin reserve to begin with. It's simply unthinkable that the US Congress will approve it, as opposition will always present a narrative that would make the policy seem like a "gambling" of public funds compared to the potential gains. This would make the budget allocation plan for purchasing Bitcoin even more difficult to justify.

[Zaguru12]

99% no.

This "budget-neutral" policy was the best they could ask for. Even under Trump, the regime has always said it'll never come from tax money. So yes, this can always be repealed but which other president or admin has a bigger want for it?

The reason why it was actually seized bitcoins that was actually turned to the reserve was simple, Trump in his campaign promises actually talked about the bitcoin reserve and after the election win was adamant of fulfilling that promise but some government officials as we all know were against that commitment and that was where the struggle for bitcoin reserve was at.

Personally I feel like if the issue was placed on using tax payers money which many of the lawmakers deemed as gambling would have halted any progress of a bitcoin act and even having a reserve. The easiest way out for both grounds to be actually neutral was the use of seized bitcoins as reserve, this way those in support get their reserve and those against the use of budgeting to buy bitcoin get there way.

The most interesting part will be when a democrat takes over after Trump and this bitcoin act law isn’t passed already, we might see changes because we all know how they will want to oppose some of the democrat policies

[Alpha Marine]

If Bitcoin is considered the most advanced financial technology, it will be adopted as a strategic reserve, one way or another.

I believe the US wouldn't have bought Bitcoin with their own money if they didn't have any seized Bitcoin. If they saw it as the most advanced financial technology, they would have adopted it, so the fact they don't see it as such shows why they haven't. They still don't have a strategic reserve.
I believe the US wouldn't have bought Bitcoin if they didn't have confiscated ones. This doesn't mean they would be against it, but they simply wouldn't deem it important enough to hold. If Trump had not made the executive order, the won't be considered as holders of BTC. The same way people don't consider other countries that have confiscated Bitcoin as holders of BTC.

[OcTradism]

The facts I know are:

• The US government has never banned Bitcoin;

Canada is where a first Bitcoin ATM set up and operated while the USA has invitation from CIA to Gavin Andresen for having a speech at their headquarter. They did not try to ban Bitcoin so far.
Gavin will visit the CIA.

• The US has aspired to maintain its position as a global technology hub;

It's more clear from Trump administration but there were good months before to boost the Bitcoin Spot ETF approvals in January 2024. There are Clarity Act with a new version to possibly ban all federal officials to launch projects related to cryptocurrencies.

If Bitcoin is considered the most advanced financial technology, it will be adopted as a strategic reserve, one way or another.

They have been a hub for technical innovations in about one latest century and they want to maintain this leading position, and never want to lose it to countries in the Middle East.

[pawanjain]

I honestly do not know whether it would have been easier or not.  To me it would be the same thing.  In fact.  Maybe seizing an Asset makes you more tempted to sell it for more Dollars than you would be to hold it.  Because from nothing you now got billions of Dollars.

But what about this.  They are not directly purchasing Bitcoin because it would look like a defeat.

In other words.  If all their Bitcoin comes from seizing Assets from crime, it is one thing.  They are simply holding on to what they HAD to seize.  But if they purchased Bitcoin instead then from the outside it looks like they WANT Bitcoin.

I think it does create a difference. If they didn't HAD any bitcoin and would have had purchased it then we could actually see US encouraging and supporting bitcoin.
Since they had not purchased bitcoin, their motive behind bitcoin isn't very clear. They can sell those bitcoins from their so called US reserve at any point of time.
If they really were interested in bitcoin then they would have purchased it any way.