Without Bitcoin, there is no national strategic reserve

A reading between the lines of the speeches of the presidential clique and the senior government executives offers a clear stamp of what is being the future of cryptoactive in the United States: cryptocurrencies yes, Bitcoin no.

It is not that managers are struggling between Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, not with those words. Differentiating thus is a borning habit from which we demarcate the borders between two things with an based syntax (as if our explanation had more weight), implying that Bitcoin is such a different monetary technology which justifies that it is elevated above, or is named apart from the logical set to which it belongs.

Functionally, Bitcoin acts as a cryptocurrency (to the extent that he uses cryptography and is money), but not as anyone. In fact, Bitcoin was the specific case, the practical example whose concept gave birth to a whole new category of speech by the induction method. That is why we say «bitcoin and cryptocurrencies», so as not to call the father with the name of his children, something that can only be done as a joke.

The managers are not differentiating, therefore, between Bitcoin and the Altcoins. In fact, it is quite the opposite: they overshadow the essential differences between the attributes of one and the others, typecasting both types of money technologies under the same label: that of “digital assets”.

Wrapping Trump’s speech and the government in a single thought, Bitcoin is nothing more than a cryptocurrency, among others, and both are only digital assets.

In tune with this, public speeches seem to order the entire legion of digital assets with the responsibility of bringing to the United States to a new era technological innovation, avoiding being left behind against China.

It is difficult to know if in the babelic chaos of concepts that use the differences between bitcoin, cryptocurrencies and digital assets there is ignorance or strategy. If the conceptual mescolanza is due to the fact that the analysis and research committees of the American government do not yet get to work, and the chaos in the discourse is a reflection of the disorder in the understanding of the industry; Or if it is due to the fact that encouraging the private sector, in the case of Donald Trump, it means signing a “technological amnesty” for all, which by chance is good for pockets, calling things with the same name so as not to offend and produce a truce between throne applicants.

In any case, regardless of whether it obeys one reason or another, more than one entrepreneur will be satisfied that the global and «polytheistic narrative» of the «digital assets» continues to be the center of attention. For ignorance or fanservicethis path taken by the government will tend to deregulate the cryptoactive industry, What will come very well to business, companies, its lucrative activities and why not, to the markets.

This path will not come badly to Bitcoin in any case, it is the only asset chosen for a strategic reserve or just one more, among others. All, Bitcoiners and Altcoiners, will get their benefit, which will not be small.

But it is not said that the government, following this path, is genuinely interested in the values ​​of decentralization and financial freedom, values ​​that above all, and better than anyone, promotes Bitcoin and its technology.

Trump does not seem to have special interest in those values, because although Bitcoin promotes moderate profit and slow creation, but feasible of wealth, its highest purpose is another, one that contradicts the very existence of the State. In this context, it is understandable that Trump and his government prioritize excessive profitable desire, and the best: using means that can control at will.

---

Discharge of responsibility: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to its author and do not necessarily reflect those of cryptootics. The author’s opinion is informatively and under no circumstances constitutes an investment recommendation or financial advice.