International Man:<\/strong>\u00a0Since its inception in 2009, the US government has been largely hostile toward Bitcoin\u2014but that changed dramatically with Trump\u2019s victory in the 2024 election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the first time, the leader of the world\u2019s most powerful nation is openly pro-Bitcoin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s your take on this remarkable shift?<\/p> Doug Casey:<\/strong>\u00a0Maybe Trump was brought around to appreciating the merits of Bitcoin by his association with Silicon Valley tech guys and various Bitcoin bros. The recent creation of Trumpcoin has added a couple of billion to his net worth and undoubtedly cemented his enthusiasm. Although, like\u00a099%<\/em>\u00a0of the zillions of meme coins out there, Trumpcoin appears to serve no useful purpose and has zero tangible value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bitcoin, on the other hand, has real value\u2014even though it\u2019s just a mathematical construct floating in the ether. In today\u2019s world, Bitcoin is a reasonable money. Through the last 5,000 years of history, gold has been money, followed by silver and, to some degree, copper. We can now add Bitcoin to that short list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me take a moment to review what constitutes a good money, which has six essential characteristics. It must be durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, usable, and limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be durable. That\u2019s why we don\u2019t use wheat as money. Gold is ultra-durable. So is Bitcoin, barring a catastrophic collapse of the electrical grid and the internet\u2014a very small but real danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be divisible. That\u2019s why we don\u2019t use artwork as money. Gold is highly divisible; Bitcoin, as a mathematical concept, is infinitely divisible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be convenient. That\u2019s why we don\u2019t use lead as money. Gold has a very high unit value, but in today\u2019s computer-oriented world, where everybody is umbilically attached to an electronic device, Bitcoin passes that test and is arguably superior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be consistent. That\u2019s why we don\u2019t use real estate as money. As an element, every piece of pure gold is chemically identical. As a mathematical concept, each Bitcoin is just like every other. Since the weight and purity of gold has to be assayed, however, Bitcoin is arguably superior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must have use value. This point is why I was a late adopter of Bitcoin; at first, I couldn\u2019t figure out what you could use it for. It took me a while to realize it\u2019s more easily transferable than gold. However, its sole use is as money, and it\u2019s increasingly being accepted as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It must be \u201chard.\u201d That\u2019s a term Nick Giambruno likes to use, meaning that it can\u2019t be created out of thin air, which is why fiat paper is a poor money. It\u2019s why gold is a good money, and Bitcoin is arguably an even better money. That\u2019s because the supply of Bitcoin is mathematically fixed, while the supply of gold can grow through mining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, back to answering the question: Why has Trump, at least as an individual, shifted his view toward Bitcoin? I\u2019d say (even though much of Trump\u2019s thinking defies logic), he sees that Bitcoin makes logical sense. Bitcoin is a satisfactory money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Man:\u00a0<\/strong>Recently, President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plan is to retain 100% of the Bitcoin currently held by the US government\u2014approximately 208,109 BTC (roughly $20 billion), or about 1% of the total supply\u2014along with all future acquisitions for the reserve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What do you make of this development?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Doug Casey:\u00a0<\/strong>Well, it doesn\u2019t make a lot of sense when the government has an officially acknowledged debt of about $37 trillion, which is growing by $2 trillion a year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, that\u2019s just acknowledged debt. When you add in various unofficial, contingent, and hidden liabilities, the US government is really underwater, more like $200 trillion. Having a strategic Bitcoin reserve is trivial in the big scheme of things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should also ask how the government acquired that Bitcoin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Almost all of that has been confiscated from people like Ross Ulbricht, who were simply transacting business in Bitcoin. We can argue that the US government\u2019s \u201cstrategic reserve\u201d is based on stolen Bitcoin. An increasing amount of the government\u2019s income is from uncontested and unadjudicated property seizures. That\u2019s a very bad trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International Man:\u00a0<\/strong>Do you think other nation-states will follow the US\u2019s lead and begin accumulating Bitcoin as a strategic asset?\u00a0Do you think the growing trend of governments holding Bitcoin as a reserve asset will weaken the fiat currency system? If so, what could be the broader implications?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Doug Casey:\u00a0<\/strong>Almost every government in the world is bankrupt, meaning its liabilities significantly exceed its assets. Holding Bitcoin as an asset, instead of using it to pay off debts, amounts to speculating in Bitcoin. Should government officials have that power? That\u2019s apart from the fact that we don\u2019t want or need a currency \u201cbacked\u201d by Bitcoin, just as we don\u2019t want a government\u00a0currency \u201cbacked\u201d by gold<\/a>. The proper approach is to cut out the unnecessary and dangerous middleman and use Bitcoin, gold, silver, or whatever themselves directly as money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Does it make any sense for governments to hold significant amounts of Bitcoin or gold? No, not really. Not beyond what\u2019s needed for the normal conduct of its limited duties. Governments should hold a minimum of assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This naturally brings us to a very basic question: What\u2019s the purpose of government?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Government is pure force and coercion, and those things should be limited. It\u2019s argued, therefore, that government should only have a military to defend its bailiwick from outside aggression, a police force to defend citizens from criminals inside the country, and a court system. There\u2019s no reason for government involvement in economic activities, including accumulating assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Government assets have necessarily been taken from the people by taxation or confiscation. Contrary to the popular meme, government isn\u2019t \u201cWe the People\u201d. It\u2019s better viewed as a dangerous predator. As such, it\u2019s best to limit the government to a minimum of everything and anything. I realize that most people will think it\u2019s an outlandish concept, but government should be strictly held to the three functions that I just mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anything that helps dethrone government fiat currency is a step in the right direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Government should not be in the money business. Just as it should not be in the education business, the food business, the transport business, or any other commercial activity. Its proper sphere is defense, police, and the courts. And one can argue\u2014I certainly do\u2014that those things are so important to the conduct of a civil society that they shouldn\u2019t be left to the state (here\u2019s the link to The Market for Liberty<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n![](\"https:\/\/www.activistpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/AP-AffiliateAd-850x500-LegalShield-1.jpg\"\/)
<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n