Let’s start here:

George casts doubt on the premise of nation-state game theory. He argues that it is doubtful that if “the US [were] to start stockpiling Bitcoin, it would compell [sic] other nations to buy more.”

But the entire history of Bitcoin refutes this point.

As the hardest money in the world, Bitcoin is engineered for global adoption—first by individuals, now by corporations, and soon by nation states.

Countries that fail to adopt hard money fall behind. China and India learned this the hard way.

A Cautionary Tale: China and India Choosing Silver over Gold

In the 19th century, China and India chose to stay on the silver standard when the rest of the world moved to the gold standard. This consequential decision set China and India’s economic development back decades.

Silver is soft money compared to gold because it is less scarce and easier to mine. And in the Darwinian world of currency competition, hard money always wins.

China and India faced severe economic consequences for their decision to stay on the silver standard.

As the world increasingly valued gold over silver, China and India grappled with trade imbalances, inflation, and decreased purchasing power. This is just one reason why—in spite of their vast troves of natural resources and human capital—the two countries were late entrants into the modern economy.

The Logic of a National Bitcoin Strategy

Nations that fail to implement a Bitcoin strategy today could be repeating the mistakes of China and India in the 19th century.

The question facing forward-thinking economists now isn’t “Gold or silver?” It’s “Gold or bitcoin?”

Bitcoin has many of the properties of gold. But it is more portable, divisible, and easier to verify. It is also scarcer and more difficult to mine—and therefore, arguably a form of harder money.

We can neglect this reality and take the same risks that China and India took in the 19th century. We can assume that the rest of the world will not adapt to harder money as the long-term viability of fiat currency becomes increasingly precarious.

Or we can begin accumulating Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset.

Simple as.

Nation-state accumulation of Bitcoin is a call option on Bitcoin becoming globally recognized as hard money/digital gold. BlackRock recognized Bitcoin’s value early on, leading to the most successful ETF launch in history. And you don’t think nation states will do the same?

Think again, anon.

TLDR: The United States holds gold as a strategic reserve asset. But Bitcoin represents a technological innovation that improves on gold. In the name of asset diversification, it would be prudent to hold both.