Is the US Reserve really buying Bitcoin? The Crypto Assets market questions: How much longer do we need to explore?

Within a single day, two completely different statements led to a policy storm triggered by the highest financial officials in the United States, causing the global crypto assets market to experience a dramatic roller coaster. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent provided contradictory statements on the core issue of "whether the U.S. will proactively purchase Bitcoin to expand its strategic reserves" within just a few hours. This move not only directly caused Bitcoin's market capitalization to evaporate by more than $55 billion in a short time but also triggered widespread confusion and strong dissatisfaction in the market.

This chaotic policy communication has starkly brought to the forefront a core issue that has been lurking for months: the grand commitment of the U.S. government to establish a "Bitcoin superpower" stands in stark contrast to the legislative reality of being "budget neutral," creating an insurmountable chasm. Meanwhile, the patience of the crypto assets market is gradually wearing thin due to repeated official statements of "still exploring."

A panic triggered by a single sentence

The catalyst for this turmoil was Besent's television interview on August 14, where he was asked about the future plans for the "United States Bitcoin Strategic Reserve." Besent clearly stated: "We will not purchase these assets, but will continue to accumulate by utilizing assets seized through (law enforcement) confiscation; we will stop selling."

This sentence is like a bucket of cold water poured over a market full of expectations. Investors interpret it as a clear signal: the U.S. Treasury has abandoned the option of actively buying Bitcoin in the market, and future reserve growth will entirely depend on the seizures made by law enforcement.

The market's reaction is real-time and intense. After the news broke, the price of Bitcoin plummeted, dropping from around $121,000 to below $118,000 at one point. According to statistics, this sell-off in just one hour caused Bitcoin's total market capitalization to evaporate by approximately $55 billion.

About seven hours after triggering a drastic market upheaval and facing fierce criticism on social media, Bessent apparently realized the seriousness of the situation. He quickly posted to try to "clarify" his position: "The confiscated Bitcoin will form the basis of the strategic Bitcoin reserves established by President Trump in the March executive order. In addition, the Treasury is committed to exploring budget-neutral ways to acquire more Bitcoin and expand the reserves."

This post attempts to bring the policy back to the previous official stance of the White House, which is "not ruling out purchases, but on the condition of budget neutrality." However, this inconsistent statement not only failed to fully soothe the market but also intensified external doubts about the confusion of its policy signals.

Although Besant's clarification temporarily relieved some investors, for many seasoned industry professionals, it felt more like a "talking without action" perfunctory response, and the long-standing pent-up frustration erupted completely.

The CEO of Bitcoin mining company Braiins, Eli Nagar, bluntly criticized: "Are you seriously still exploring budget-neutral avenues? Exploring without executing will ultimately make people feel like you're avoiding responsibility. Act quickly!" The famous Bitcoin consultant Max Keiser also mocked the so-called "exploration" by Bessant, arguing that it lacks credibility. In fact, since President Trump signed the relevant executive order in March this year, the U.S. Treasury's so-called "exploration" has lasted a full five months, yet there has been no substantial progress.

Policy deadlock

The repeated statements of Bessent within a day are not simply a slip of the tongue, but reflect the fundamental dilemma faced by the United States when implementing Bitcoin reserve policies - the stringent constraints of being "budget-neutral."

The so-called "budget neutrality" means that any purchasing behavior by the government must not increase the federal fiscal deficit or burden taxpayers. This effectively blocks the simplest route of "directly printing money to buy coins", and the Treasury must find a creative way to raise funds.

Despite the fact that some ideas have been proposed by the outside world and policy circles, such as: Reassessing the Treasury's gold certificates: The official gold reserves of the United States still use the outdated valuation of $42.22 per ounce from 1973, which results in a huge discrepancy of hundreds of billions of dollars compared to current market prices. If revalued at market price, it could unleash significant purchasing power. Utilizing tariff revenue: Directly using part of the tariff revenue to purchase Bitcoin.

However, any of these ideas, to move from theory to reality, are likely to require legislative approval from the U.S. Congress. Senator Cynthia Lummis, who has a friendly attitude towards Crypto Assets, has already proposed the "BITCOIN Act" to attempt to authorize the government to buy coins directly, but the bill has yet to make progress on the congressional agenda.

Trust Crisis

Does the United States actually buy Bitcoin? The answer to this question has become even more unclear after experiencing this one-day scare. The turmoil of Besant not only exposed his personal communication errors but also highlighted the significant gap between the top-level design and the implementation of the U.S. government's digital asset strategy.

Compared to the indecisiveness at the federal level, a few state governments in the U.S. have already begun small-scale testing. This kind of "local encircling the central" policy experiment may, in the future, push the Washington government to accelerate its pace in response. However, before that, every instance of ambiguity from high-level officials could lead the market to reprice for "policy uncertainty."

In the short term, whether the relevant authorization bills can make breakthroughs in Congress will be key to determining whether the "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve" can transform from a slogan into a real system. In the long term, if the United States truly wants to become the "global Bitcoin superpower" it claims to be, it needs not only to hold enough Bitcoin but also to establish a clear, stable, and predictable policy framework. Otherwise, the market's trust and patience will eventually be exhausted in the repeated explorations of ambiguous statements.