On January 9, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, Cathie Wood, the founder of ARK Invest, made a judgment in public that could shake the global monetary imagination: the U.S. government may no longer be satisfied with passively handling the proceeds from law enforcement seizures, but instead may directly enter the spot market to purchase Bitcoin as a national strategic reserve. She proposed a grand vision of accumulating as much as 1 million BTC in the treasury, which sharply contrasts with the current U.S. position that mainly relies on judicial seizures and sporadic auctions to form its Bitcoin holdings. This raises a more pointed question: Is the dollar hegemony, backed by unlimited credit and relying on government bonds and monetary expansion, destined to collide with Bitcoin, which has a total supply cap of 21 million, in the dimension of "national reserve assets"?
The Turning Point from Seized Assets to Proactive Accumulation of Bitcoin
So far, the Bitcoin assets on the U.S. government's books have largely been a "byproduct" of the law enforcement and judicial system. Whether related to dark web transactions, ransomware, or financial fraud cases, relevant departments have seized large amounts of Bitcoin during investigations and recovery processes, which the government then liquidates through auctions or disposal processes, forming the main source of Bitcoin held by the U.S. today. This is a typical passive accumulation path: the government is not actively optimistic about the asset but is forced to take on this portion of chips for the purpose of combating crime and maintaining financial order.
In stark contrast, the 1 million BTC reserve scale envisioned by Cathie Wood is no longer a "byproduct" in meaning. Given the total supply of 21 million BTC, of which the vast majority has already been mined, if the U.S. were to substantially approach this scale in the medium to long term, its holding proportion would be sufficient to influence the global circulation pattern. More critically, compared to the current state of relying mainly on seizure channels for sporadic accumulation, moving towards a proactive and systematic entry into the spot market for procurement means that the role of the fiscal department will shift from "disposing of problem assets" to "planning strategic reserve assets," while law enforcement agencies may transition from merely combating criminals to inadvertently becoming a precursor to the state raising Bitcoin chips.
If this shift occurs, the signal significance for other Bitcoin-holding countries and large institutions will be disruptive. Bitcoin, once viewed as a "problem asset" derived from being seen as a money laundering tool and a breeding ground for fraud, would transform into a "strategic asset" officially included in the treasury of the world's largest economy, completing a symbolic rating upgrade. For sovereign entities that have quietly allocated positions on-chain, this will be interpreted as validation of their own layouts; for central banks and sovereign funds that are still hesitating, the U.S. accumulation of Bitcoin will be seen as a signal of a "new reserve race that could be costly to miss," forcing them to reassess their reserve asset structure and policy stance towards crypto assets.
The Rigid Ceiling of 21 Million BTC Against the Dollar Printing Machine
If the underlying logic of the dollar is an infinitely expandable currency backed by national credit and tax capacity, then the core narrative of Bitcoin is the absolute scarcity constructed by its total supply cap of 21 million. This fundamental difference in supply mechanisms determines that the two are naturally on different tracks in terms of national reserve assets: the former relies on flexibility and liquidity to maintain its global settlement and reserve status, while the latter attracts asset allocators sensitive to inflation and credit risk through verifiable rules and expectations. When the issuance logic of the "printing machine" encounters the rigid ceiling inscribed in code, both conflict and complementarity emerge.
In this context, if the U.S. truly raises its Bitcoin holdings to the million BTC level in the medium to long term, the structure and narrative of its global reserve asset basket will be rewritten. On one hand, the traditional balance between gold, foreign exchange reserves, and government bond assets will incorporate a new factor that is highly volatile yet highly scarce. The U.S. could package Bitcoin as a "strategic reserve resource of the digital age," linking it with high-tech and energy security issues, claiming it is not only a financial asset but also a geopolitical infrastructure chip in the network era. On the other hand, this configuration may also be viewed externally as a hedge against its own fiat currency: should inflation, deficits, or debt crises reignite, the existence of Bitcoin positions will be incorporated into the narrative system of "national-level insurance."
However, this operation will not have a one-way impact on the credibility of the dollar and the government bond market. Incorporating Bitcoin into the treasury could either add a layer of anti-inflation safety net to the dollar system or objectively acknowledge that "the dollar needs a hedge," thus subtly constraining the credibility of its own monetary policy. This will become the focal point of debate between Wall Street and central bank factions. If the market interprets this as the U.S. beginning to pay for "long-term inflation and debt risks," the marginal impact on demand and yields for government bonds will be hard to ignore. Further extending to the geopolitical currency game, if the U.S. takes the lead in national-level accumulation of Bitcoin, other sovereign nations may be forced into a "Bitcoin reserve race": not following means falling behind in a potential new type of reserve asset cycle; following, however, would require bearing the dual pressure of chasing high prices and maintaining the stability of their own currency systems.
Why the Trump Administration Might Bet on Bitcoin
The transformation of "U.S. accumulation of Bitcoin" from an abstract idea into a scenario seriously discussed by the market largely stems from Cathie Wood's interpretation of Trump's political motivation chain. She believes that in her judgment on January 9, 2026, Trump is not only seeking to maintain his political influence but is also actively courting the support of the emerging interest group in the crypto industry. For a president who needs to balance traditional financial forces, tech capital, and retail investor sentiment, signaling that "the state may directly buy Bitcoin" carries significant political leverage.
Looking back at the Trump administration's policy tendencies, a relatively clear friendly trajectory can be seen: compared to more aggressive regulatory proposals, his team is more likely to choose to release some degree of looseness within a compliance framework, extending olive branches to trading platforms, mining companies, and related financial service institutions. These regulatory relaxations and industry outreach gestures not only help reactivate some capital market discussions but also preemptively create the public opinion soil and policy space for "the state possibly participating in coin purchases at some future stage," making this radical move less abrupt in the eyes of voters and stakeholders.
The idea of large-scale national purchases of Bitcoin is also a high-risk, high-reward gamble on the domestic political front. On one hand, it has the potential to quickly attract young voters and tech professionals who are optimistic about technological innovation and decentralized finance, and it could make capital forces that already have heavy positions on-chain view Trump as "their candidate." On the other hand, this move will inevitably touch the sensitive nerves of existing financial interest groups and traditional regulatory bodies: the government bond market, major Wall Street firms, and some staunch monetary conservatives will see it as a challenge to the current financial architecture and regulatory philosophy. Moreover, in the internal power struggles in Washington, this card can also be packaged as an issue of "technology and sovereignty"—Bitcoin is no longer just a speculative object but a new dimension of national competition alongside chips, AI, and energy, thus becoming a repeatedly usable chip in budget negotiations, regulatory power divisions, and even international discussions.
How a Million BTC Purchase Would Tear Open Market Structure
From a purely market structure perspective, a national-level purchase at the 1 million BTC level would exert unprecedented pressure on the existing circulating supply and trading volume. Considering that a large amount of Bitcoin has long been dormant in cold wallets, the truly high liquidity circulating chips are far below the total on-chain amount. Once the U.S. is viewed as a "long-term holder" in the treasury, the market will quickly reassess the scarcity of the circulating supply. Prices will no longer merely respond to marginal changes in demand but will be re-anchored at a new equilibrium point of "national-level rigid buying" and "limited selling pressure," leading to scenarios of extreme market conditions and liquidity squeezes coexisting.
As for the choice of entry path, it will directly determine the impact method and rhythm. If the government chooses to purchase in batches directly on the open spot market, the exchange order books will frequently show abnormal order fills and liquidity vacuum zones, igniting FOMO sentiment in a short time and forcing passive followers to chase prices higher; conversely, if positions are built slowly through ETF channels, it may superficially maintain price stability while quietly concentrating chips into state-backed financial instruments in terms of holding structure. Further, if purchases are made through OTC or long-term purchase agreements with large holding institutions, it could weaken the short-term price volatility while facilitating a more covert but deeper transfer of chips—from dispersed institutions and whales to a single sovereign entity.
In this scenario, the dynamics between miners, long-term holders, and institutional funds will also undergo reconstruction. Miners will face an unprecedented imagination of a "bottom buyer": as long as Bitcoin prices do not deviate too far from costs and expectations, they may always find liquidity exits in higher-level national buying at some future stage; long-term holders will need to recalculate marginal returns between "the state taking over" and "holding chips to participate in a longer-term game," deciding at what price they are willing to transfer their chips to the U.S. Treasury; while mature institutions may leverage policy expectations to engage in multi-layered leverage and derivatives layouts between client asset allocation and proprietary speculation. As the narrative of mainstream asset Bitcoin being aggressively acquired by the state continues to strengthen, funds are likely to further withdraw from marginal assets—including highly volatile altcoins and some NFT projects—facing rebalancing pressure to be abandoned in exchange for "mainstream asset tickets."
The Intertwined Testing Period of Crypto Recovery and National Entry Expectations
At the time Cathie Wood made this judgment, the market itself was in a state of "neither extreme bull market nor completely frozen" testing period. According to data from PANews and OKX, among mainstream tokens, SOL rose about 1.39% that day, while RENDER fell about 7.11%, showing a high degree of differentiation within the sector. Meanwhile, the NFT space also showed signs of short-term warming, but overall transactions and depth remained limited, indicating that market funds were more inclined towards structural opportunity plays rather than indiscriminate risk-taking.
On this fragile liquidity baseline, the narrative of "the U.S. will accumulate a million Bitcoins" naturally possesses the ability to amplify price volatility and extreme emotions. Once the market views this concept as a high-probability event in the medium to long term, even if policy details and timelines are completely absent, funds will spontaneously begin to engage around related targets. Some industry participants will actively amplify this narrative to issue new products, initiate fundraising, write research reports, and lobby policymakers, forming a self-reinforcing loop of "narrative driving policy expectations, expectations driving prices, and prices reinforcing the narrative."
The problem is that if the eventual reality does not unfold as the market expects, or if the U.S. government chooses to indefinitely delay the coin purchase action due to political maneuvering and fiscal pressure, the risks accumulated around this narrative will be released in concentrated form. Speculative funds that previously flowed in under the "U.S. accumulation" logic will not only rapidly withdraw from Bitcoin and its peripheral targets but may also deliver a second blow to the already weakly recovering NFT and altcoin sectors. In this process, the price drop itself is merely a surface phenomenon; the deeper harm lies in confidence: the market needs to recalibrate the credibility of "national entry expectations," thus maintaining heightened vigilance towards any future similar political narratives.
When Bitcoin Enters the Treasury: Opportunities and Backlash
The idea of formally incorporating Bitcoin into national-level reserves is no longer just a distant utopia for the tech community and extreme bulls, but has been brought into mainstream discussions about the dollar system and global monetary landscape under the push of institutional investors like Cathie Wood. If the U.S. truly takes this step in the future, it will not only reshape the internal structure of its reserve assets but will also force other countries to provide clear responses in sovereign asset allocation, thereby accelerating the formation of a triad system of "fiat currency, gold, and crypto assets." The deep leap of Bitcoin from a private asset to a treasury asset carries symbolic significance far beyond its price itself.
But in a more realistic time dimension, what the market trades is often expectations rather than facts. The narrative of "the U.S. accumulating a million Bitcoins" is likely to undergo multiple rounds of amplification and correction before the policy is truly finalized. For participants, the real risk lies not in whether this vision will ultimately be realized, but in whether capital has already overdrawn future returns in an overly advanced story during a phase with no clear roadmap, making any slight disturbance potentially trigger severe volatility.
Looking ahead, from the U.S. to other sovereign nations, it is highly probable that Bitcoin will be drawn into the main battleground of national security and monetary sovereignty. How to discern which signals are short-term indicators stemming from elections and lobbying, and which are genuine structural actions marking the evolution of the reserve system amidst political noise and propaganda wars, will determine whether institutions and individuals can survive long enough and remain sufficiently clear-headed in this long-cycle game.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
