2025-12-31 12:23:58

I recently came across a set of data that really helps illustrate the issue. According to Kashif Raza, founder of Bitinning, in 2016 only 2 countries publicly held Bitcoin. By 2025, this number has grown to 20. A tenfold increase in less than a decade—what this reflects is worth pondering.

Don't just interpret this as a retail craze or institutional trend; it actually signifies a fundamental shift in national-level asset allocation strategies. When sovereign states start to include BTC in their treasuries, what does that mean?

From a market perspective, there are indeed many positive signals. First, Bitcoin's attribute as a non-sovereign asset has been officially confirmed—it doesn't belong to any single country but is regarded as an important asset by multiple nations. Second, this type of holding brings more stable long-term demand. National-level allocations differ from short-term speculation; these holdings are likely to be locked in for the long haul, making it difficult for them to quickly flow back into the market. Furthermore, against the backdrop of rising global debt and ongoing currency devaluations, BTC is gradually evolving into a hybrid role of "digital gold plus settlement reserve."

But the risks must also be clearly understood. The deeper the involvement of states, the more complex the regulatory game becomes. Geopolitical fluctuations could amplify Bitcoin's price volatility. Once some countries categorize it as a "strategic resource," short-term market movements will become more easily driven by sentiment. Bitcoin's price trend will no longer be a simple rise-and-fall logic but will be entangled in the grand chess game of the global financial system and international power struggles.

Returning to the core point: as more and more countries begin to treat Bitcoin as part of their asset allocation, it has essentially undergone a transformation in identity—from an initial geek experiment, to institutional-level holdings, and now to national-level chips. This path is bound to be bumpy, but it clearly points to one fact: Bitcoin will never return to the era of 2016. So the question is, which country will be the next to officially enter the game?

BTC-1,34%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

WalletInspector

· 4h ago

The matter of national hoarding of coins, to put it simply, is the beginning of the "HODL" within the system, and there's really no turning back. --- But 20 countries are still too few; it feels like the European bunch is actually the next main force. --- Speaking of which, if you think about it the other way around, since all countries are competing, what about the chips held by retail investors... hey. --- The geopolitical game is spot on; BTC has long ceased to be purely a technical matter. Now, it's part of the big power financial game. --- In 2016, only 2 countries? That's quite interesting. Now it's all about competition, haha. --- What I'm most afraid of is that once it's classified as a "strategic resource," its price fluctuations will directly follow the international situation, making buying and selling extremely passive at that point. --- Wait, looking at it this way, BTC has actually already won. From the margins to the national level, this narrative really leaves nothing to be said. --- Next? I bet Mexico or some emerging market country will move first, while Europe and America are still bickering.

View OriginalReply0

LiquiditySurfer

· 4h ago

The matter of national-level allocation, to put it simply, is the ultimate game of liquidity. Locking in chips means market depth becomes shallower, and volatility will inevitably increase. This is a double-edged sword for surfers.

View OriginalReply0

NFTFreezer

· 4h ago

The era of national-level chips is here, and this time it's for real. --- From 2 to 20, doubling in ten years, what does that mean... currency devaluation. --- Don't talk about long-term locking, when geopolitical chaos occurs, people will still sell off. --- Digital gold? Nice idea, but let's see who plays with it as a strategic weapon first. --- This time, BTC has truly become a pawn, but I'm still bullish. --- Next? It has to be a country facing economic hardship; only then would they do this. --- From geek experiments to national assets, it's truly a blow to the dimension reduction. --- Regulatory game is becoming more complex... That's true, but isn't this still good news? --- Can't go back to 2016, so is it still a good time to buy now? --- The key question is which country dares to be the 21st to take the plunge; probably a small country testing the waters again. --- Instead of guessing the next country, why not watch when the coin price breaks new highs. --- How long can treasury-level allocations lock in BTC? I think it's uncertain. --- Global debt is high, countries are all short of money, and BTC becoming a hot commodity is normal.

View OriginalReply0

Anon32942

· 4h ago

The government is stepping in, and the crypto circle is considered to have won big. But now, it's really impossible to play anymore.

View OriginalReply0

governance_lurker

· 4h ago

The logic of national-level holding and locking chips sounds a bit scary. If this continues, will Bitcoin still be the same BTC?

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_therapist

· 4h ago

20 countries getting involved, really need to think about the logic behind it... But to be honest, this wave of national-level allocation feels more like a forced choice, right?

View OriginalReply0

WalletDetective

· 4h ago

Wow, 20 countries? Why do I feel like this data might be a bit fake? --- Once national-level chips are locked in, do retail investors still have a way out? --- Geopolitical turmoil, BTC might become the next pawn. --- Wake up, Bitcoin has long ceased to be that free thing. --- Is the next India or Brazil? Betting five bucks. --- So, the more countries get involved, the more dangerous it becomes. --- I totally agree, holdings at the treasury level are the real demand support. --- The problem is, which country dares to make an official announcement? They’re all secretly stockpiling. --- Digital gold? Sounds good but could also become a new battleground.

View OriginalReply0