On the evening of March 2, 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 United States becomes the world's cryptocurrency capital".
As soon as the news came out, the market soared: SOL rose more than 12% in 24 hours, breaking through $155, XRP rose 31%, and ADA even surged 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 or the establishment of a Bitcoin strategic reserve task force, 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 Lummis' Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Act of 2024, planning to use Bitcoin holdings to pay off national debt and strengthen the position of the US dollar. Now, this policy has been translated 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. Sources 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 Did Decentralized Technology Become a "Colonial Tool"?
Trump's cryptocurrency reserve bill may seem beneficial to the industry, but it actually hides 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 cryptocurrencies 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.
Even more ironically, the bill's classification standards for cryptocurrency assets expose the logic of power intervention: "the degree of decentralization" becomes the 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 classified as a security. This standard may seem reasonable, but it actually provides the power with the space for selective regulation - those 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 Trump administration's two core strategies:
Policy Relaxation: By appointing cryptocurrency-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, mainstream cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are incorporated into the government's asset portfolio, which is tantamount to bestowing the "national credit" label on cryptocurrencies.
This "policy + capital" dual boost 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, always difficult to reconcile.
1. The 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 "cryptocurrency bonds", it will seriously undermine the decentralized trust foundation.
2. The Suffocating Effect of Compliance Shackles
Trump's promised "regulatory-friendly" policy remains doubtful. XRP is still mired in the SEC lawsuit, and policy implementation may be scaled down due to congressional resistance. Even more ironically, the Trump administration on the one hand shouts "decentralization", and on the other hand directly intervenes in the market through executive orders, which is contrary to 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 for are essentially centralized corporate-issued "tech stocks". Incorporating the latter into the national reserve is tantamount to using taxpayers' money to buy risky assets, which undermines the seriousness of Bitcoin as a reserve asset.
Faced with the erosion of power, the cryptocurrency community is divided:
The Resistance Camp: Insists on "code is law" and advocates completely separating from the traditional financial system. For example, the rise of privacy coins and anti-censorship chains, trying to avoid regulation through technical means.
The Compromise Camp: Accepts partial regulation in exchange for legitimacy. For example, institutions like Coinbase actively lobby for legislation and promote compliance.
The Symbiosis Camp: Explores the middle ground. For example, DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) try to combine community governance with the legal framework, 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 Trump's case proves that once technology enters the realm of real-world politics and economics, it is difficult to escape the fate of being "recruited" 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 premeditated 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 in the game. Just as Bitcoin's birth 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.
