On the evening of March 2nd, Beijing time, US President Trump posted on social media that he would instruct the presidential task force to advance a cryptocurrency strategic reserve plan including XRP, SOL, and ADA, and emphasized "ensuring that the US becomes the world's cryptocurrency capital".
As soon as the news came out, the market surged: SOL's 24-hour increase exceeded 12% and broke through $155, XRP rose 31%, and ADA even soared nearly 60%, with Bitcoin briefly breaking through the $95,000 mark.
This "Trump tweets → Coin prices soar" script has been played out before. Since Trump's victory in the 2024 election, his policy moves have always kept the cryptocurrency market on edge. Whether it was the dismissal of SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, the establishment of a Bitcoin strategic reserve task force, or even the issuance of the Meme coin WLFI by the family business, each move has triggered violent market fluctuations.
Trump's cryptocurrency initiatives are not a sudden whim. As early as the 2024 presidential campaign, he promised to promote Bitcoin as a national strategic reserve asset, citing Senator Loomis' BITCOIN Act of 2024, planning to use Bitcoin holdings to repay national debt and strengthen the position of the US dollar. Now, this policy has been transformed from a campaign slogan into an executive order, with the lobbying power of the cryptocurrency industry and the "collusion of interests" of the Trump team behind it. Insiders reveal that a group of cryptocurrency bigwigs surround Trump, and they have pushed for policy implementation through political donations and lobbying, even being accused of insider trading.
The Paradox of Power: How Can Decentralized Technology Become a "Colonial Tool"?
Trump's cryptocurrency reserve bill may seem beneficial to the industry, but it actually conceals contradictions. The core of blockchain technology is decentralization, that is, to break free from the control of centralized authorities through a distributed ledger. However, when the US government incorporates Bitcoin, XRP and other assets into the national reserve, it is essentially "co-opting" these assets with state power, turning them into an extension tool of the US dollar hegemony.
More ironically, the bill's classification standards for cryptocurrency assets expose the logic of power intervention: the "degree of decentralization" becomes a bargaining chip for regulatory exemption. If a cryptocurrency network is sufficiently decentralized (like Bitcoin), it is considered a commodity; if there is centralized governance (like some DeFi tokens), it is defined as a security. This standard may seem reasonable, but it actually provides a space for selective regulation by power - assets that serve national interests are supported, while those that threaten the existing system are suppressed.
Where does the power's "Midas touch" ability come from?
The answer lies in the two core strategies of the Trump administration:
- Policy relaxation: by appointing crypto-friendly officials (such as the new SEC chairman Paul Atkins), promoting stablecoin legislation, and banning central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), it creates a "regulatory-friendly" environment for the industry.
- Capital endorsement: in the name of national strategic reserves, incorporating mainstream cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum into the government's asset portfolio, which is tantamount to bestowing the "national credit" label on cryptocurrencies.
This "dual boost" of policy and capital essentially brings the cryptocurrency market into the power framework of traditional finance. However, this is precisely at odds with the original intention of blockchain "decentralization".
The "Quantum Entanglement" of Power and Decentralization: Resistance, Compromise, or Symbiosis?
However, the contradiction between power and decentralization is like the "Blockchain Trilemma" of blockchain, and it is always difficult to reconcile.
1. Risk of Consensus Mechanism Collapse
The core of blockchain is distributed consensus, while the essence of Trump's reserve plan is the intervention of centralized power in the market. If the US Treasury Department uses $18 billion to seize Bitcoin and establish a reserve pool, or forcibly raises funds through "crypto bonds", it will seriously undermine the decentralized trust foundation.
2. The Suffocating Effect of Compliance Shackles
Trump's promise of "regulatory-friendly" policies remains doubtful. XRP is still mired in the SEC lawsuit, and policy implementation may be scaled down due to congressional resistance. More ironically, while the Trump administration is shouting "decentralization", it is directly intervening in the market through executive orders, which is at odds with the "anti-censorship" spirit of blockchain.
3. Deviation from the Technological Essence
The underlying logic of Bitcoin is "digital gold", emphasizing scarcity and decentralization; while the XRP, SOL and other public chains that Trump is pushing are essentially "tech stocks" issued by centralized enterprises. Incorporating the latter into the national reserve is tantamount to using taxpayers' money to buy risky assets, undermining the seriousness of Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
Faced with the erosion of power, the cryptocurrency community is divided:
- The Resistance: insisting on "code is law" and advocating complete separation from the traditional financial system. For example, the rise of privacy coins and anti-censorship chains, trying to avoid regulation through technical means.
- The Compromisers: accepting some regulation in exchange for legitimacy. For example, institutions like Coinbase actively lobby for legislation and promote compliance.
- The Symbiotic: exploring a middle ground. For example, DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are trying to combine community governance with legal frameworks, retaining autonomy while avoiding direct conflict with power.
Trump's cryptocurrency reserve bill may mark the "coming of age" of decentralized technology - it is no longer the utopia of a niche geek, but a global system that must face political and economic realities. The intervention of power is not necessarily a disaster: compliance may attract traditional capital and promote technological implementation; but if it loses checks and balances, blockchain will become another Wall Street, or even an accomplice to the expansion of power.
Epilogue: The Idealism of Technology and the Realism of Power
The original intention of the cryptocurrency world is to break the hegemony of centralization, but the case of Trump proves that once technology enters the realm of real politics and economics, it is difficult to escape the fate of being "co-opted" by power. In this game, the real winners may not be the believers in decentralization, nor the politicians in Washington, but the "arbitrageurs" who navigate between the two - the whales, lobbying groups, and preemptive conspiracy groups that reap the benefits from policy fluctuations.
The future cryptocurrency market may not be completely decentralized, nor completely controlled by power, but rather a dynamic balance formed through this game. Just as the birth of Bitcoin was a response to the 2008 financial crisis, today's cryptocurrency industry also needs to answer a question: when idealism encounters realism, can technology still maintain its "purity"? The answer may lie in the choices of every developer, investor, and regulator.
