Tiger Research: Should the market be happy or disappointed about the U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserves?

This article is written by Tiger Research. News about the U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve has been circulating for nearly two years. The core of the initial BITCOIN Act (to be launched in 2024) was the government's proactive purchase of Bitcoin, while the ARMA Act contains no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as a positive development remains an open question.

Key Points

The executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 commits not to sell the Bitcoin already held by the federal government but does not require the purchase of new coins. The market had previously expected more, and when the content of the order became clear, the price of Bitcoin immediately dropped by 5.7%.

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

Currently, the most optimistic prospect is the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA), which is not a purchasing bill but prohibits the government from selling the Bitcoin it holds for at least 20 years.

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

Background: What the U.S. Has Done and Has Not Done

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to establish a Bitcoin strategic 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 forfeiture as a strategic reserve and instructing for its permanent holding. The order did not instruct the acquisition of new Bitcoin, only promising not to sell the Bitcoin already owned by the government. Once the content of the order was clear, the price of Bitcoin fell from about $92,000 to below $85,000.

At the time of signing, the federal government held about 190,000 BTC, accounting for approximately 0.9% of the total supply of 21 million. All of these Bitcoins came from criminal and civil proceedings, none were acquired through purchase.

The situation has not changed. Aside from the executive order, nothing has been incorporated into law.

Legislative History

Discussions that began in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, reintroduced in 2025, and restructured into ARMA in 2026. The main thread of this evolution is a constant compromise with political realities: the mandatory purchase amount has gone from something to nothing. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.

2024: Original Bill

Since Senator Lummis entered the Senate in 2021, she has publicly called for Bitcoin to be included in the federal reserve. At that time, there was no consensus within Congress, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023, along with the collapse of FTX, made the environment even less favorable.

In 2024, the situation changed as Bitcoin broke through $100,000 and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of that year, Lummis proposed the first concrete legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million Bitcoins within five years, to be held for at least 20 years, funded by the Federal Reserve's surplus account.

1 million BTC accounted for 4.76% of the total supply, exceeding the approximately 840,000 held by the Strategy report. The bill automatically expired at the end of that Congress.

2025: Reintroduction and Stagnation

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

The market response was generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance on three fronts:

• Fiscal Cost: At the time's prices, 1 million Bitcoins were worth trillions of won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party viewed gold as a stable store of value while considering Bitcoin a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.
• Dollar Hegemony: Democratic critics, led by Congresswoman Maxine Waters, argued that treating Bitcoin as a reserve asset would undermine the dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
• Treasury Secretary's Position: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated that the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases. As an official responsible for enforcing the law, he clearly opposed it.

Since then, the bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee.

2026: ARMA as Legislative Compromise

In May 2026, Congressman Nick Begich proposed the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement Act (ARMA), with Democratic Congressman Jared Golden joining as a co-sponsor. The name change itself is strategically significant: it aims to break away from the associations that previously hindered legislative progress and expand the coalition of supporters.

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

The decisive difference from the previous bill is what ARMA does not include. The BITCOIN Act mandated the purchase of 200,000 BTC annually, while ARMA completely removed this 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. The research task is not a purchasing task.

ARMA is essentially a custodial and holding bill rather than an acquisition bill. Its purpose is to gain passage, so adjustments were made accordingly.

Short-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, there are two bills progressing concurrently in Congress. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House. The goals of the two are different: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, while ARMA is a custodial bill.

ARMA has a higher probability of passing. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, hampered by fiscal costs and support only from Republicans. ARMA has Democratic support and does not impose a purchase obligation, eliminating the most common reasons for opposition.

Even so, the passage of ARMA itself will 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 will be legally prohibited from entering the market for at least 20 years. The potential pressure from government sell-offs will disappear. But the issue is that without any purchase obligation, there is no new demand. What the market wants is for the government to directly purchase Bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its actual effect is closer to elevating the executive order from March 2025 to statutory status.

The key is what may happen after ARMA. Nick Begich has held Bitcoin since 2013 and was one of the co-sponsors of the BITCOIN Act in March 2025. He has publicly supported Bitcoin as a strategic asset. The structure of ARMA suggests a phased approach rather than an all-at-once solution: first establishing a legal framework, then building acquisition tasks on that foundation.

If ARMA passes, Bitcoin will gain formal legal status as a national reserve asset, and the debate about mandatory purchases is likely to reopen on a more solid foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced at the time of Trump's campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.

In short, the passage of ARMA has limited short-term impact on prices. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market, and if ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchasing legislation will become more visible.