Europe-US Bitcoin Reserve Race Gains Political Momentum

On October 2, Swedish opposition MPs from the Sweden Democrats filed a parliamentary motion urging the government to explore a national Bitcoin reserve, framing the proposal as diversification alongside the Swedish krona and gold. The motion specifically suggested seeding the reserve partly with seized cryptocurrency assets while expressing explicit skepticism about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). This development in the Riksdag, Sweden’s parliament, represents a significant political endorsement of Bitcoin as a legitimate reserve asset for a developed European economy.

Simultaneously across the Atlantic, US Representative Nick Begich renewed his push for a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” referring back to the BITCOIN Act reintroduced in March. His proposal outlines a five-year path to acquire up to one million BTC using “budget-neutral” mechanisms. The clustering of these political signals from two advanced economies within the same news cycle indicates that sovereign Bitcoin exposure is being seriously tested by mainstream politicians, moving from fringe concept to credible policy discussion.

The scale of these proposals reveals their potential market impact. A US federal purchase program sized at 1 million BTC would equal approximately 4.76% of Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply and cost roughly $120 billion at current prices. Even a smaller pilot tranche would mechanically withdraw liquid supply, raise term scarcity, and tighten the float available to private buyers—effects that past state accumulations have hinted at. The US federal government already controls a sizable amount of BTC from forfeitures, roughly 200,000 BTC according to tallies shared by White House crypto czar David Sacks, translating to nearly 1% of the total supply.

While Sweden’s motion did not specify a target size, its logic mirrors other international proposals, including the Czech central bank governor’s suggestion to allocate up to 5% of FX reserves to Bitcoin. The Czech move would funnel approximately €7 billion, or roughly 63,000 BTC at a price of $120,000, equivalent to 0.3% of the total supply. El Salvador’s on-chain reserve, now slightly over 6,260 BTC, accounts for only about 0.03% of total supply but has demonstrated the practical viability of sovereign Bitcoin ownership to policymakers worldwide.

The legal mechanics for implementing these reserves differ by jurisdiction but share common strategic objectives. Sweden’s motion routes through the Riksdag and, if taken up by the government, would likely be referred to the finance ministry and central bank for feasibility work alongside existing gold and foreign exchange frameworks. In the US, Congress can legislate purchases and governance while leveraging March’s executive order that established a federal Bitcoin reserve and digital asset stockpile. The BITCOIN Act specifically notes funding via Fed remittances and balance sheet revaluation tools to avoid direct appropriations.

The policy steps that would actually move macro relationships are straightforward yet powerful. First, establishing statutory authority to purchase and hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset with clear mandates for custody, auditing, and reporting would allow sovereign entities to buy programmatically rather than opportunistically, making supply absorption predictable. Second, implementing funding rules—whether budget-neutral mechanisms in the US or rebalancing rules in Europe—would automate the bid across market cycles. Third, establishing a disclosure cadence similar to FX reserves data would allow markets to anchor on scheduled sovereign prints.

The potential market transformation extends beyond simple price appreciation. Credible sovereign demand would tend to weaken the historical inverse correlation between BTC and real yields during accumulation windows, with the sign and magnitude depending on the size and transparency of the program. As “policy demand” partially replaces “risk appetite” demand, Bitcoin’s sensitivity to real yields could fall, similar to how official sector gold buying has damped gold’s beta to rates at the margin. Reserve management guidelines that permit lending, swaps, or strategic liquidity provision would further integrate Bitcoin into the plumbing of public finance.

These developments occur within a broader global context of sovereign digital asset experimentation. Sub-national experiments like New Hampshire’s authorization of up to 5% of state funds to be invested in precious metals and large-cap digital assets contribute to the shifting sentiment. Internationally, Pakistan has established a national reserve as part of a broader mining and data center program. While none of these initiatives equals a G7 central bank buying BTC outright, together they map a vector rather than an anecdote.

The ultimate test will be whether parliaments and Congress convert talking points into purchase authority, funding rules, and disclosures that markets can model. If they do, the repricing won’t just be about Bitcoin increasing in value because governments are buying—it will be about a new class of structurally price-insensitive actors refactoring how Bitcoin trades against real yields, FX, and risk assets. Considering Bitcoin’s fixed supply and the coordinated political signals, a reserve race between the US and Europe represents a plausible outcome that could redefine sovereign asset management for the digital age.