Tiger Research：美國戰略比特幣儲備，市場該高興還是該失望？

This article is written by Tiger Research. News about a US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve has been circulating for nearly two years. The initial BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) centered on the government proactively purchasing Bitcoin, while the ARMA Act contains no such clause at all. Whether the market should view this as positive remains an open question.

Key Takeaways

President Trump's executive order signed in March 2025 pledged not to sell Bitcoin already held by the federal government but did not mandate the purchase of new coins. Market expectations were higher, and when the order's details became clear, Bitcoin's price immediately dropped by 5.7%.

Legislative efforts that began in 2024 have significantly retreated over the past two years: evolving from a bill requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC to one containing only custodial obligations with no purchase requirements at all.

The most promising bill currently, the "American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act" (ARMA), is not a purchase bill. Instead, it prohibits the government from selling its held Bitcoin for at least 20 years.

ARMA's short-term impact on the Bitcoin market is limited, but in the long term, establishing Bitcoin's legal status as a national reserve asset could reopen discussions about mandatory purchases, which would be positive for the market.

Background: What the US Has Done and Not Done

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, which the market interpreted as the federal government becoming a direct buyer.

After the election, on March 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order designating Bitcoin obtained through criminal investigations and civil forfeitures as a strategic reserve and instructing its permanent retention. The order did not instruct the acquisition of new Bitcoin, only pledging not to sell the Bitcoin the government already owns. When the order's contents became clear, Bitcoin's price fell from approximately $92,000 to below $85,000.

At the time of signing, the federal government held approximately 190,000 BTC, representing about 0.9% of the 21 million total supply. All of these Bitcoins came from criminal and civil proceedings; not a single one was purchased.

The current situation remains unchanged. Beyond the executive order, nothing has been codified into law.

Legislative History

Discussions starting in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, which was reintroduced in 2025 and restructured into ARMA in 2026. The main thread of this evolution is continuous compromise towards political reality: mandatory purchase volumes went from existing to non-existent. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.

2024: The Original Bill

Senator Lummis, since entering the Senate in 2021, has publicly called for incorporating Bitcoin into the federal reserves. At the time, there was no consensus within Congress, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023, coupled with the FTX collapse, created a less favorable environment.

The situation shifted in 2024 when Bitcoin broke $100,000 and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of the same year, Lummis introduced the first concrete legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million Bitcoin over five years, held for at least 20 years, funded by Federal Reserve surplus accounts.

1 million BTC represents 4.76% of the total supply, exceeding Strategy's reported holdings of approximately 840,000 BTC. The bill automatically expired at the end of that congressional session.

2025: Reintroduction and Stalled Progress

In March 2025, the same month as the executive order, Lummis reintroduced the BITCOIN Act as Senate Bill 954. The core structure remained unchanged: purchasing 200,000 BTC annually for five years, totaling 1 million, held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain exemptions to disposal prohibitions, tightened holding obligations, and added four co-sponsors.

Market reaction was generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance from three main sources:

• Fiscal Cost: At then-current prices, 1 million Bitcoin was worth hundreds of trillions of Korean Won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican party see gold as a stable store of value and Bitcoin as a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.
• Dollar Hegemony: Democratic critics, led by Representative Maxine Waters, argued that treating Bitcoin as a reserve asset would weaken the US dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
• Treasury Secretary's Stance: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing the law, he has clearly opposed it.

The bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee since then.

2026: ARMA as a Legislative Compromise

In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich introduced the "American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act" (ARMA), with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as co-sponsor. The name change itself is strategic: aimed at shedding associations that hindered the previous bill's progress and expanding the coalition of supporters.

ARMA does two things: consolidates all Bitcoin currently held or seized by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury Department, and prohibits the sale of this Bitcoin for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal ban is for repaying national debt.

The decisive difference from its predecessor is what ARMA does not contain. The BITCOIN Act mandated the annual purchase of 200,000 BTC, whereas ARMA completely removes that obligation. Instead, it instructs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to study and report within 180 days on whether additional purchases can be achieved in a budget-neutral manner. A study mandate is not a purchase mandate.

ARMA is essentially a custody and holding bill, not an acquisition bill. Its goal is passage, so its structure has been adjusted accordingly.

Short-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, two bills are progressing concurrently in Congress. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House. Their objectives differ: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, ARMA is a custody bill.

ARMA has a higher probability of passage. The BITCOIN Act has stalled in committee for over a year, burdened by fiscal costs and solely Republican support. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligations, eliminating the most common objection.

Even so, ARMA's passage itself would not constitute a short-term positive for the Bitcoin market. If ARMA takes effect, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government would be legally barred from entering the market for at least 20 years. The pressure from potential government sales would disappear. However, the issue is that without any purchase obligation, there is no new demand. The market wanted the government to directly buy Bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its practical effect is closer to elevating the March 2025 executive order to statutory status.

The key lies in what could happen after ARMA. Nick Begich has held Bitcoin since 2013 and was one of the House co-sponsors of the BITCOIN Act in March 2025. He publicly supports Bitcoin as a strategic asset. ARMA's structure suggests a phased approach rather than a single step: first establish the legal framework, then build the acquisition mandate upon it.

If ARMA passes and Bitcoin gains formal legal status as a national reserve asset, the debate about mandatory purchases is likely to resume on more solid ground. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced in when Trump made his campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.

In short, ARMA's passage has a limited short-term impact on prices. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market. If ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation becomes much more visible.