Bitcoin Gains Strategic Asset Status as US Lawmakers Propose National BTC Reserve

Bitcoin (BTC) is moving back into the center of the global monetary debate—not as a fleeting risk-on trade, but as part of a broader reassessment of what ultimately underwrites money. As confidence in governments, central banks, and fiat regimes erodes, traditional ‘hard assets’ like gold and newer digital alternatives such as Bitcoin are increasingly being treated as strategic stores of value, reshaping how policymakers and institutions think about financial sovereignty.

That shift is a central theme of Austrian research firm Incrementum’s 2026 In Gold We Trust report, titled “Back to the Monetary Future.” The report frames today’s market structure as the product of three inflection points: the end of the gold standard in 1971, the 2008 global financial crisis, and the massive liquidity expansion that followed 2020. Incrementum argues that the U.S.-led political, military, and monetary order often referred to as ‘Pax Americana’ is entering a late-stage phase—placing trust, rather than growth or innovation alone, at the heart of the investment landscape.

In Incrementum’s telling, gold’s long-term rally is less a commodity story than a referendum on fiat credibility. Since the first In Gold We Trust report in 2007, when gold traded around $670 per ounce, the metal has risen by nearly sevenfold through 2026. Over the same period, the report estimates the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and the euro—measured in gold—fell by 85.3% and 87.4%, respectively. In other words, paper currency may not collapse overnight, but its value can ‘melt’ steadily, while scarce assets gain prominence.

Crucially, Incrementum does not cast Bitcoin as gold’s rival. Instead, it describes gold and Bitcoin as complementary forms of ‘hard assets’: gold providing long-established stability and trust, while Bitcoin offers digital scarcity, portability, and operating independence. The report characterizes Bitcoin as a “neutral, rules-based network” that could form one pillar of future money, and suggests that as gold’s ‘remonetization’ accelerates, Bitcoin could attract additional attention alongside it. It even leaves open the possibility that central banks could one day hold small, strategic Bitcoin positions in addition to gold—an idea that would have been unthinkable in mainstream policy circles a decade ago.

Developments in Washington are increasingly cited as evidence that this debate is no longer confined to investors. On May 21, 2026 (UTC), U.S. Representatives Nick Begich and Jared Golden introduced the “American Reserve and Monetary Assets Modernization Act” (ARMA), a bill that would establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve within the U.S. Treasury and formalize management and disclosure frameworks for digital assets held by the federal government.

According to the proposal, any Bitcoin held under the reserve would be kept for at least 20 years, and lawmakers would direct the government to explore ways to acquire additional BTC without increasing taxes, the fiscal deficit, or national debt. Supporters describe Bitcoin as ‘digital gold’ and argue that the U.S. should manage seized or otherwise government-held Bitcoin more deliberately as a strategic resource, rather than treating it as an incidental byproduct of law enforcement actions.

The practical impact of ARMA remains uncertain given the legislative process, but its symbolism is clear: in parts of the U.S. political system, Bitcoin is being reframed from a speculative instrument into a question of national balance-sheet strategy and monetary resilience. The logic echoes an older era when gold reserves signaled credibility; in a digital economy, proponents argue, the ability to custody and govern strategic digital assets could also become part of statecraft.

Smaller nations are also being discussed as early movers in this evolving playbook. Bhutan has become known for leveraging surplus hydropower to mine Bitcoin, a model sometimes compared to how Norway built sovereign wealth on North Sea oil—except Bhutan’s experiment pairs renewable energy with digital reserve accumulation. Meanwhile, countries facing constraints in dollar-based settlement systems, such as Iran, have periodically signaled interest in permissionless payment rails. In this view, gold and Bitcoin can serve parallel roles as alternative channels of value—one rooted in centuries of monetary history, the other in network-based scarcity.

Private capital is aligning with the same narrative. Corporate treasuries continue to evaluate Bitcoin as a long-duration asset, while asset managers are increasingly packaging gold-and-Bitcoin exposure into single product frameworks. Incrementum points to Cantor Fitzgerald’s 2025 launch of a Bitcoin fund incorporating gold-based downside protection, and to 21Shares’ 2026 listing on the London Stock Exchange of a combined gold-and-Bitcoin ‘BOLD ETF’ product—signs that blended ‘hard asset’ strategies are migrating further into traditional market infrastructure.

Against that backdrop, South Korea’s policy posture is being scrutinized for moving more slowly and for framing crypto primarily through the lens of speculation and consumer risk. The Financial Services Commission has outlined a roadmap to gradually permit corporate participation in digital-asset trading, beginning with limited allowances for non-profits and exchange-related transactions, then extending to pilot programs involving select listed firms and professional investors. Direct participation by ordinary corporations and financial institutions remains constrained, and discussions around spot crypto ETFs have advanced cautiously compared with the U.S., where spot Bitcoin ETFs were already integrated into mainstream markets before the conversation broadened toward strategic reserve concepts.

Market observers note that caution and delay are not the same. Regulation can reduce fraud and systemic risk, but regulation without a national strategy can also push capital, talent, and innovation offshore. The deeper critique is not that South Korea is failing to buy Bitcoin, but that it lacks a clear state-level definition of what Bitcoin is—whether it should be treated solely as a speculative asset or as a form of ‘digital hard asset’ with potential relevance to long-term competitiveness and financial sovereignty.

The broader implication for markets is that the global conversation is shifting from price to positioning. As emerging-market central banks accumulate gold and institutions normalize Bitcoin allocation frameworks, the language of a new monetary order is taking shape. Countries that continue to rely on older terms—‘speculation,’ ‘overheating,’ ‘bans,’ and ‘deferrals’—risk finding themselves reacting to, rather than shaping, the next phase of financial infrastructure. The strategic gap, analysts warn, can ultimately become a wealth gap.