From changes in national policies, the asset allocation strategies of small countries' governments may face shifts. Compared to traditional reserve assets, Bitcoin's appeal as an alternative asset lies in two points: first, its storage form breaks through physical limitations, eliminating the need to establish vaults overseas and reducing geopolitical risks; second, the cost of cross-border flow is nearly zero, significantly lower than the transportation and tariff costs of gold. This characteristic is especially attractive to small economies that need to quickly mobilize funds and hedge against exchange rate risks. From a long-term asset allocation perspective, such governments may gradually increase the proportion of cryptocurrencies in their national reserves.
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StablecoinGuardian
· 01-08 04:13
Are small country governments really starting to consider BTC as reserve assets? I have to say, I’m convinced... Not having to build overseas vaults definitely makes things easier, but geopolitical risks are indeed a pain point.
View OriginalReply0
WalletDetective
· 01-07 21:22
If small country governments really start hoarding Bitcoin as reserve assets, this will be a big deal... But on the other hand, geopolitical risks are indeed a pain point; who wants their treasury to be held hostage by others?
View OriginalReply0
ReverseFOMOguy
· 01-05 04:54
A small country is changing its approach—using Bitcoin as the national treasury? That's an interesting idea, but if they really do that... wouldn't the geopolitical risks directly shift to cybersecurity?
View OriginalReply0
SudoRm-RfWallet/
· 01-05 04:53
The small country government is copying our homework, now it's really coming.
View OriginalReply0
LightningAllInHero
· 01-05 04:46
To be honest, this logic is a bit ridiculous. Do small countries really consider Bitcoin as a reserve asset? They might as well hold more US dollars since they will eventually need to trade with USD anyway.
View OriginalReply0
SilentObserver
· 01-05 04:46
Small country governments are following suit? Storing gold or storing Bitcoin, this choice is really messed up... But the zero-cost cross-border flow really hits the point.
---
They’ve saved on gold shipping costs to buy Bitcoin, this deal is quite interesting.
---
Geopolitical risks are indeed a hard flaw, but betting national reserves on the chain? That’s a bit risky...
---
Wait, does this logic mean that small countries have a chance to buy the dip?
---
If the cost is low, does that mean you have to use it? I don’t quite understand this idea...
---
It seems that governments around the world are quietly DCAing too, this is just ridiculous.
View OriginalReply0
TopBuyerForever
· 01-05 04:43
The small countries are really getting anxious. They can't move their gold, distrust the dollar, and are now starting to consider BTC? I understand the logic, but whether they dare to really do it is another story.
From changes in national policies, the asset allocation strategies of small countries' governments may face shifts. Compared to traditional reserve assets, Bitcoin's appeal as an alternative asset lies in two points: first, its storage form breaks through physical limitations, eliminating the need to establish vaults overseas and reducing geopolitical risks; second, the cost of cross-border flow is nearly zero, significantly lower than the transportation and tariff costs of gold. This characteristic is especially attractive to small economies that need to quickly mobilize funds and hedge against exchange rate risks. From a long-term asset allocation perspective, such governments may gradually increase the proportion of cryptocurrencies in their national reserves.