A legislative split has emerged regarding the establishment of a federal Bitcoin Reserve, with a new House bill taking a distinctly different approach from its Senate counterpart. Representative Byron Donalds introduced the “Reserve and Stockpile Act,” a proposal aiming to formalize the creation of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve and a Digital Asset Stockpile, as previously outlined in an executive order.
This initiative stands in stark contrast to the Senate’s “Bitcoin Act,” authored by Senator Cynthia Lummis. The Senate bill advocates for a significant, predetermined investment of approximately $80 billion in Bitcoin. In contrast, the Donalds bill avoids setting a fixed purchase amount.
The House bill, concise in its scope, focuses on solidifying the executive order’s intent, specifically utilizing assets seized in criminal or civil proceedings to populate the reserve. This approach echoes the administration’s stated preference for leveraging existing holdings rather than allocating substantial taxpayer funds.
The language employed by Representative Donalds emphasizes a shift in federal cryptocurrency policy, framing it as a reversal of what he perceives as past hostility towards the digital asset sector. He also invokes the administration’s assertion that further acquisitions of Bitcoin by the Treasury and Commerce Secretaries are permissible if “budget neutral,” even though the legislative text itself lacks a direct articulation of this condition.
Discussions surrounding the existing federal Bitcoin holdings, which are estimated to be near 200,000 BTC due to forfeitures, continue to fuel the debate. While the Senate’s legislation proposes a complex strategy of revaluing gold certificates to fund additional Bitcoin purchases, its financial implications are subject to interpretation and scrutiny.
Recent private discussions involving the Presidential Working Group on Digital Assets have added to the complexity. According to attendees, the executive director, Bo Hines, expressed the administration’s desire to accumulate Bitcoin, and support legislation solidifying a strategic reserve. However, while some interpreted this as an endorsement of the Senate bill, official clarifications state that no specific legislative endorsement was given.
The Donalds bill, by eschewing a mandatory purchase amount, offers a politically expedient path for the administration. In a fiscal climate marked by intense debate over government spending, its simplicity could be a significant advantage. This streamlined approach potentially presents a less contentious route to achieving the goal of a codified federal Bitcoin Reserve. Whether this restrained method will satisfy proponents of a more substantial government investment remains to be seen.
