Evaluación de los factores estratégicos y políticos que intervienen en la posible creación de una reserva de bitcoins por parte de Estados Unidos

The U.S. government's stance on bitcoin has undergone a decisive policy pivot. On March 6, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that formally established a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This move marks a clear departure from merely holding seized assets; it is a declaration of intent to treat bitcoin as a strategic national asset. The order immediately capitalized the reserve with approximately 200,000 seized bitcoins, framing them as a long-term store of value.

The critical directive for the future, however, lies in the acquisition strategy. The order explicitly directs the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce to develop strategies for acquiring additional Government BTC provided that such strategies are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on United States taxpayers. This is the central fiscal and political hurdle. The administration has set a high bar: any expansion of the reserve must be funded without drawing from the federal budget, a requirement that will shape the mechanics and timing of any purchases.

This executive action is part of a broader policy shift. It is coupled with significant regulatory changes, including the retirement of SEC Chair Gary Gensler and the nomination of a crypto-friendly successor, signaling a new era of regulatory engagement. Together, these moves signal a formal recognition of bitcoin's unique properties-its fixed supply and security-as assets worthy of a place in national reserves, akin to gold. The path from a reserve of seized coins to an actively managed strategic stockpile is now set, but its execution hinges entirely on the political will and fiscal ingenuity required to meet that budget-neutral mandate.

The Political Catalyst: Midterm Incentives and the "Lame Duck" Calculus

The policy framework is set, but its execution is now a political calculus. The key driver for active purchases may not be fiscal engineering, but electoral arithmetic. Cathie Wood argues that President Trump has a clear incentive to deliver visible progress on crypto ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In her view, that dynamic increases the odds of a shift from holding seized coins to actively buying. The political imperative is twofold. First, there is the desire to avoid the "lame duck" status that comes with a president entering his final years of office. Trump, she suggests, wants to have "another one or two productive years," and crypto policy is seen as a path to that legacy.

Second, and more fundamentally, the crypto industry itself is now a durable political constituency. Wood notes that crypto was "part of the reason he won the presidency". This creates a need to keep the sector onside. The industry's political engagement has been substantial, with industry-backed political action committees pouring money into congressional races and prominent executives publicly endorsing the administration. Any perceived retreat from pro-crypto promises could alienate this key voter bloc.

The potential catalyst window aligns with this political timeline. Wood predicts Trump could begin actively buying bitcoin for the reserve in 2026, with the midterm elections serving as a clear deadline for action. This suggests the latter half of 2025 or early 2026 as a period when the administration may move beyond the initial capitalization of seized assets. The political pressure to act is compounded by the budget-neutral mandate. The administration has so far shown "reticence about actually buying bitcoin", funding the reserve only with forfeited assets. Yet, with a clear political window and a need to demonstrate progress, the calculus for finding a budget-neutral mechanism-perhaps through asset swaps or other innovative financing-may shift. The bottom line is that the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve is entering a new phase. Its future expansion is now less about whether the policy exists and more about whether the political will to execute it can be mustered before the next electoral test.

Financial and Market Implications: Liquidity, Scarcity, and Price

The potential for large-scale U.S. government buying introduces a fundamental new variable into bitcoin's market calculus. Unlike previous accumulation, which has largely involved confiscated assets, open-market purchases would represent a sustained, sovereign source of buying pressure. This could act as a powerful, structural counterweight to traditional selling flows. The immediate impact would likely be felt in liquidity and price stability, as a consistent buyer of significant size enters the market. For a digital asset often criticized for volatility, this could provide a new floor and a clearer path for price discovery.

Cathie Wood frames this as a catalyst for bitcoin's core narrative. She contends that direct U.S. purchases would "set off what we're all waiting for - the scarcity value to reassert itself." This is the crux of her long-term bull case. With nearly 20 million of bitcoin's 21 million cap already mined, the asset's fixed supply is a defining feature. Wood argues that sovereign accumulation, by reducing the circulating supply available to the public, would accelerate the market's recognition of this scarcity. It is this reassertion of scarcity that underpins her long-term Bitcoin bull case of $1.2 million, even after recent adjustments. In her view, the government's role would be to validate and amplify a fundamental economic truth already embedded in the protocol.

Yet the magnitude of this impact remains entirely contingent on the unknowns of execution. The primary market impact would depend on the scale, pace, and funding mechanism of any acquisitions. The administration's "budget-neutral" mandate is a critical constraint, but the specific methods-whether through asset swaps, innovative financing, or other mechanisms-have not been defined. A slow, small-scale program might have a muted effect, while a rapid, large-scale purchase could dramatically alter supply dynamics. Until these parameters are clarified, the market's reaction will be speculative. The potential is clear, but the path to realizing it is still being written.

Catalysts, Scenarios, and Key Risks

The forward path for the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve hinges on a few critical catalysts and a clear set of scenarios. The primary test will be whether the administration moves beyond the initial capitalization of seized assets. The specific catalyst is a formal, budget-neutral acquisition plan or, more immediately, an initial purchase announcement by late 2025. This would signal a shift from policy declaration to active execution, validating the political and market thesis.

The bull case is straightforward. If active purchases begin, they would reinforce the scarcity narrative that Cathie Wood sees as paramount. By systematically removing bitcoin from the public market, the government would act as a structural buyer, directly reducing circulating supply. This could provide a powerful, sustained price floor and drive the asset toward levels of $100,000 and beyond, as the market recalibrates to this new sovereign demand. The political imperative ahead of the 2026 midterms provides a clear timeline for this action, with Wood predicting Trump could reverse his current reticence to deliver visible progress.

The bear case, however, is equally plausible and centers on political and fiscal constraints. The administration's focus could shift to other priorities, or the "lame duck" calculus could lose urgency. More fundamentally, the "budget-neutral" mandate may prove to be a material constraint. If the administration cannot devise a viable mechanism to fund purchases without drawing from the federal budget, the scale of any buying would be limited. This could cap the market impact, leaving the asset's price trajectory largely dependent on private-sector dynamics. Furthermore, a change in administration or a reversal of the executive order would halt the plan entirely.

The key risk, therefore, is that the requirement for budget neutrality, while politically savvy, may also be economically limiting. It could force the government into smaller, slower purchases or complex, non-market transactions that dilute the intended signal. This would undermine the core investment thesis that large-scale sovereign accumulation is the catalyst for scarcity reassertion. Until the mechanics of this constraint are resolved, the market's reaction will remain speculative, caught between a powerful narrative and a practical, self-imposed limit.