Bitcoin should not be investment tool for government
Bitcoin is one of the most important monetary innovations in a generation. It gives individuals a censorship-resistant alternative to government-controlled money, a fixed supply no central bank can dilute, and the ability to hold and transfer value without the permission of any intermediary. From a liberty standpoint, that is profoundly good.So let me be clear: I support Bitcoin. What I oppose is the growing movement to have government buy and hold it as a “strategic reserve asset.” Those of us who genuinely value both sound money and limited government should oppose it too.The argument for state Bitcoin reserves sounds appealing. Proponents call it a hedge against inflation, a signal of financial innovation, a way to position states for a decentralized future. Some frame it as monetary sovereignty. But strip away the framing, and the question is simple: Should your state government be in the business of making investment decisions with taxpayer money?The answer should be no—not because Bitcoin is too risky (private citizens are free to take risks with their own funds), but because government should not be a market actor at all. When a state buys Bitcoin hoping it will appreciate, that is not a reserve strategy. A reserve is about liquidity and stability. What proponents are describing is a portfolio decision—a bet on future price performance. Call it what it is: speculation with public funds.Once lawmakers accept that logic, there is no limiting principle. If appreciation justifies buying Bitcoin, why not equities? Why not tech funds, real estate, or venture capital? Every asset class has a compelling long-term story. The moment government enters the investment business, the argument that it should invest only in Bitcoin becomes very hard to defend.
