I remember the exact moment the dream of a US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve took hold. It was at a conference in Lagos, mid-2024, and a speaker was showing a slide of a Bitcoin-laden Treasury balance sheet. The room erupted. “The US government is going to buy BTC!” someone shouted. I felt the energy, the hope. But as a builder who has seen DeFi protocols collapse under the weight of their own marketing, I’ve learned one thing: Trust the process, but verify the code. The code here is not smart contracts—it’s policy, budget, and political will.
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen just poured cold water on that dream. In a recent interview, she stated that Bitcoin’s price is likely to stay near current levels by year-end, with a wide band of $10,000 to $20,000 in either direction due to macroeconomic uncertainty. More importantly, she argued that the US government is unlikely to buy Bitcoin in the next two years. This isn’t just a bearish prediction; it’s a reality check on a narrative that has been inflating expectations since the election debates.
Let’s decode the context. The narrative of the US government as a buyer of Bitcoin gained traction after Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced the “Bitcoin Act” in 2024, proposing that the US purchase 1 million BTC over five years. The idea was that the government would accumulate Bitcoin as a strategic asset, similar to gold. It was a powerful story—one that could justify a $100,000+ price target. But narratives are not code. They are fragile. Narratives are the new smart contracts—they can be exploited. The market has been pricing in this possibility, but Chen’s statement suggests that the probability is near zero.
Now, the core analysis. As someone who spent years building DeFi infrastructure for the unbanked in Nigeria, I’ve seen how government adoption narratives can create false floors. The US government already holds over 205,000 BTC from seizures (mostly from Silk Road and the Bitfinex hack). They haven’t sold it—but they haven’t bought more either. The political reality is that any new budget expenditure for Bitcoin would face fierce opposition from fiscal conservatives and the Federal Reserve. The Fed doesn’t want to endorse a volatile asset as a reserve. And with the 2026 midterms approaching, no politician wants to be seen “gambling” with taxpayer money. Chen’s view is pragmatic: “The US government buying BTC is a low-probability event in the next two years.” I agree. Based on my experience with regulatory pushback on Sankofa Yield, I know that policy moves at the speed of bureaucracy, not Twitter.
But here’s the contrarian angle: the market’s obsession with the US government is a distraction. The real driver of Bitcoin’s price this cycle has been ETF inflows, corporate treasuries, and global adoption—not Uncle Sam. The US government is not the only buyer. MicroStrategy, Marathon, and even pension funds are accumulating. And what about the rest of the world? El Salvador, Bhutan, and even the UAE are making moves. The narrative that “without US government buying, Bitcoin will tank” is a logical fallacy. Bitcoin’s value proposition—decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant—does not depend on state endorsement. In fact, too much government involvement could undermine its very nature. Bull markets mask technical flaws; bear markets expose them. The flaw here is the belief that a single actor can save us.
Finally, the takeaway. Chen’s interview is not a death sentence for Bitcoin. It’s a dose of reality. The market needs to recalibrate its expectations. The $100,000 year-end dream may be replaced by a $60,000–$80,000 range, but that’s still a healthy zone. The real opportunity lies in building—not waiting for a government bailout. So, will the US government buy Bitcoin? Probably not soon. But does the future of decentralized money depend on it? That’s the wrong question. Trust the process, but verify the code. And the code says: build for the people, not the politicians.