shazow on Warpcast

sid pfp

While establishing a U.S. Crypto Strategic Reserve might legitimize crypto assets, doesn’t government ownership fundamentally undermine the decentralized ethos that drew us to crypto in the first place? Curious to hear how the community sees this potential paradox.

28 replies

12 recasts

77 reactions

shazow pfp

Decentralized crypto is for everyone, including governments. The power is that it puts individuals on equal footing as nation states for the first time. We can't expect governments to not participate, but they participate as equals to us. https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x3add1f5a

1 reply

0 recast

10 reactions

sid pfp

I get your point—but governments participating equally with individuals in asset markets isn’t exactly new—it’s how they’ve always engaged with gold or other traditional reserves. What’s genuinely unprecedented here is the U.S. government using taxpayer dollars to speculate on digital assets that don’t yet have a clear, scaled economic function. Given that we’re still actively building out crypto’s practical utility, is it truly wise or justifiable for the U.S. government to intervene by essentially picking winners among thousands of cryptocurrencies? Doesn’t that inadvertently give them outsized influence, undermining the very decentralization we’re striving to preserve?

3 replies

0 recast

9 reactions

shazow pfp

Traditionally when governments participate in markets, they have powers that individuals don't have. They can freeze assets, seize them, etc. They don't have these powers onchain (though they can certainly apply pressure offchain). Governments buying crypto isn't exactly new either. El Salvador is the obvious example, but plenty of countries receive and hold crypto including Ukraine. US and China have seized huge amounts of crypto over the years too. Is it smart for the US to speculate and pick winners? I don't think the US is doing anything smart lately. Obviously the administration is pumping their own bags at the cost of the tax payers. Is this a problem for decentralized crypto? No, I think this is a scenario we should be expecting, and I'm sure we'll see worse in years to come. To be clear, I don't think of this as a boon, but rather a threat vector that we will outlive.

1 reply

0 recast

3 reactions

sid pfp

Yeah, I largely agree—this does feel like a convenient grift designed to make money for Trump’s family and his inner circle, more than anything else. It undeniably legitimizes crypto and blockchain-based projects in ways we haven’t seen in recent years. Also, comparing the U.S. government’s strategic crypto reserve—explicitly naming five specific blockchains—to a country like El Salvador buying crypto feels fundamentally different. By officially endorsing just these select cryptocurrencies, the U.S. government is effectively picking winners, implying everything else is irrelevant or inferior, which raises deeper issues around fairness and decentralization. There is potential short-term benefits for the broader crypto ecosystem, but I’m deeply skeptical about the strategic motives behind it. It also worries me that this could become a problematic distraction, especially when presidency inevitably changes, potentially leading to instability, misuse, or regulatory confusion down the line.

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

shazow pfp

Yea I think we're in agreement. If I was going to be *excessively* charitable to the Trump admin: 1. "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" *is* an explicit promise that was made by Trump during the campaign, though an additional basket of crypto was hinted at by other members. This somewhat violates the premise I've seen on Bluesky that it's supposed to be a quick pump/dump. 2. The government purchasing "investments" is different from accumulating liabilities. (I think some criticisms conflate that. Ironically, the left often calls for nationalizing critical corporations, but "not like this!" ) 3. We can interpret this as the US government doubling down to be "aligned" with crypto wrt regulation and policy. They want to demonstrate "skin in the game." (Maybe the most credible point?) 4. They foresee other nations doing something similar eventually and want to get in early. (Probably true on some timescale.) Who knows, maybe they're doing it in good faith? https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x329f1516

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

shazow pfp

A few more thoughts here: https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x50e727fe

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction