Why Some Countries Want Strategic Reserves in Bitcoin — and Others Don’t
Source: © 2025 Digital & Analogue Partners
As the world tiptoes into the age of digital finance, Bitcoin is no longer just a speculative asset. It’s becoming a strategic consideration. But while some countries are exploring or even acquiring Bitcoin for national reserves, others remain staunchly opposed. The divide is growing, and it is not merely economic — it is legal, geopolitical, and ideological.
Strategic Reserves: A Tool of Sovereignty
For decades, gold and foreign currencies have been the cornerstones of national reserves. Strategic reserves serve as a buffer against economic shocks, currency volatility, and geopolitical upheaval. Bitcoin, as a borderless, scarce, decentralised asset, is now being discussed in the same breath.
Traditionally, strategic reserves consist of assets like the USD, euro, gold, and sovereign debt instruments. Their purpose is to ensure liquidity in times of crisis, defend currency pegs, and maintain investor confidence. According to the IMF’s own guidelines, assets held as reserves must be liquid, safe, and return-generating — with the underlying requirement that they be foreign-currency claims on non-residents under the control of monetary authorities. Bitcoin, as a decentralised, non-sovereign, cryptographically native bearer asset, does not fit this definition. It is not a claim on any counterparty, nor is it integrated into international payment systems.
Why Some States Are Pursuing Bitcoin Reserves
Countries considering or implementing Bitcoin reserves tend to share specific features: exposure to USD dominance, vulnerability to sanctions or inflation, or aspirations to rebrand themselves as leaders in digital finance.
El Salvador was the first mover, declaring Bitcoin legal tender in 2021 and subsequently purchasing it for national reserves. The rationale was twofold: de-risk from exclusive reliance on the USD and position the country as a hub for crypto-native capital and innovation. Though controversial, the initiative sent a clear signal — Bitcoin was not just tolerated; it was part of the sovereign treasury.
The United States, meanwhile, has become a significant sovereign holder of the asset through law enforcement seizures. Bitcoin confiscated by federal agencies like the IRS and DOJ is either held temporarily or sold via auction. In 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order proposing a “Strategic Digital Asset Reserve,” formalising the idea that seized Bitcoin could be retained and structured as a sovereign asset base. However, on state level there is no alignment : Texas has passed its own legislation toward this goal, while other states such as Arizona and Florida having introduced (though ultimately failed to pass) similar bills.
Other jurisdictions are keeping pace. In Kazakhstan, the government has publicly considered the inclusion of crypto assets in national reserves, particularly as part of its broader “Digital Tenge” and crypto mining sector development plans. Pakistan has followed suit, citing the need to diversify away from IMF conditionality and hedge against rupee volatility. Government statements framed Bitcoin as a non-correlated asset that might offer insulation from both US monetary policy and domestic macroeconomic instability.
Why Others Reject the Concept Entirely
For many central banks, particularly in advanced economies, the idea of holding Bitcoin as a reserve asset remains not just inadvisable but fundamentally incompatible with the mandates of monetary governance.
South Korea’s central bank, the Bank of Korea, has been explicit in its rejection of Bitcoin reserves. Officials argue that Bitcoin’s volatility, lack of backing, and non-compliance with IMF standards render it an unacceptable addition to the country’s foreign exchange portfolio. South Korea’s financial system is deeply integrated into global markets, and deviation from best practices would pose reputational risks.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has taken an even more categorical stance. President Christine Lagarde has repeatedly stated that Bitcoin does not meet the standards of liquidity, stability, or institutional trust required for reserve consideration. For the ECB, the issue is not simply technical. The very architecture of Bitcoin — decentralised, scarce, and non-sovereign — conflicts with the principles that underpin the eurozone’s financial order. To incorporate Bitcoin would be, in effect, to admit that monetary value can exist outside central control — a position most central bankers are unwilling to endorse.
These holdouts share common reasoning: Bitcoin’s volatility undermines reserve stability; its legal ambiguity raises compliance risks; and its decentralisation challenges the authority of central banks tasked with monetary stewardship.
What Drives the Divide?
The Bitcoin reserve debate reveals more than a disagreement over asset quality — it is a reflection of state strategy. Countries with constrained access to capital markets, histories of currency devaluation, or a desire to hedge against US dollar hegemony tend to view Bitcoin as an opportunity. It is politically neutral, borderless, and digitally native — appealing to those seeking monetary autonomy.
The United States, while central to the global financial system, appears motivated by a different logic. Its interest in formalising Bitcoin reserves is shaped by institutional pragmatism and geopolitical foresight. By holding Bitcoin and shaping its legal treatment, the US can remain at the centre of innovation while preserving control over the narrative and infrastructure that will define digital asset legitimacy.
In contrast, countries with reserve currencies, advanced banking systems, and adherence to IMF orthodoxy tend to view Bitcoin as a threat to institutional coherence. Their monetary systems depend on predictability, centralised control, and close cooperation with multilateral institutions — all of which Bitcoin calls into question.
Thus, the decision to hold Bitcoin as a sovereign asset has less to do with market performance and more to do with monetary identity. For some, it is an act of rebellion or necessity — a signal of disalignment from Western financial orthodoxy. For others, it is a risk to credibility, incompatible with legal and institutional norms. In an increasingly fragmented and digitised global order, Bitcoin may emerge not as a universal reserve, but as a selective tool — adopted by those outside the monetary mainstream, avoided by those who designed it.
Liza LobutevaThis article was written by Liza Lobuteva of Digital & Analogue Partners. Visit dna.partners to learn more about our team and the services.Be digital, be analogue, be with us!
Why Some Countries Want Strategic Reserves in Bitcoin — and Others Don’t was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.