US Bitcoin Reserve signals a shift: An opening for India
The US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, launched in January 2025 under President Donald Trump, has elevated digital assets to a global stage. Valued at more than $20 billion as of June 2025, it underscores Bitcoin's emerging role as a store of value.For India, this shift invites reflection: could Bitcoin, thoughtfully integrated, enhance our economic toolkit?The US initiative currently repurposes 200,000 seized Bitcoins as a buffer against inflation, a strategy cemented by last month's White House Crypto Summit with clearly articulated plans to buy more Bitcoin by exploring budget-neutral manners.advertisement
Thereby, expanding its Bitcoin reserve holdings in the coming times without hurting the taxpayer.Three US states have now passed legislation authorising the deployment of public funds to purchase and hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset, with more expected to follow.These measures reflect a growing recognition of Bitcoin's potential to bolster fiscal resilience and serve as a hedge in uncertain economic conditions.This isn't a reckless pivot, it's a calculated step toward embracing digital assets' legitimacy. For India, observing this offers a lens to assess whether Bitcoin could diversify our reserves, complementing traditional holdings in an uncertain global economy.BHUTAN & BITCOIN: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE FOR INDIABhutan provides a regional perspective. Since 2021, it has mined Bitcoin with hydropower, amassing a $1 billion-plus reserve by May 2025. Born from tourism's decline, this approach now supports public services and sustainability goals.advertisementIndia, with its renewable energy capacity, has the full scale of capability to adapt this model, though scale and regulation pose distinct challenges. Bhutan's success suggests digital assets can stabilise economies, a point worth considering.WHAT MAKES BITCOIN STAND OUT?Bitcoin stands apart as an asset without an issuer—a commodity, not a security, as the US SEC now recognises. Like gold, it has no central authority; no government, bank, or company controls it. This decentralisation is its bedrock, setting the stage for three defining traits: scarcity, liquidity, and transparency.Only 21 million Bitcoins will ever exist, which, unlike traditional currencies or even assets like stocks, bonds, or commodities that face oversupply and hence inflation, has a fixed supply.This mirrors gold's finite nature but operates at digital speed. Bitcoin trades globally 24/7, offering liquidity unmatched by most decentralised assets; gold, by contrast, sits static in vaults or jewellery, less fluid in daily exchange.And its blockchain—a public, tamper-proof ledger—makes every single transaction verifiable to anyone, reducing the opacity that often clouds traditional markets.These qualities echo gold's appeal: a trusted store of value beyond any single entity's grasp. Yet Bitcoin transcends it, digital and dynamic where gold is physical and inert. At $100,000+ today, it's this blend—gold's scarcity with digital fluidity—that earns it the 'digital gold' label by many including the White House.advertisementIt's an intuitive shorthand: finite and reliable like metal, but built for a borderless, tech-driven world.Bitcoin also stands out because of its programmability and portability. It can move at the speed of the internet, settle transactions with verification but, without intermediaries, and be stored securely with modern cryptography-based security.In an increasingly digital and decentralised world, it aligns with how the next generations are thinking about money and value.THE ROLE OF REGULATIONRegulation remains pivotal. India's crypto policy—taxed but unregulated—needs clarity to unlock potential. During its G20 presidency in 2023, India chaired the formation of a crypto working group with the IMF, tasked with shaping global standards. While its recommendations will take their due course, we are seeing other jurisdictions including Russia, China, and Brazil from the BRICS, and other G20 nations led by the US, race ahead—not pausing for consensus.The IMF's recent classification of Bitcoin as a capital asset further sharpens the need for direction. Clear regulation could bring both transparency and the required oversight to this emerging asset class—enabling responsible innovation while protecting a rising investor class.advertisementThis is essential for fostering institutional confidence and building a framework where Bitcoin can play a meaningful role in India's macroeconomic strategy.India stands at a pivotal juncture. A measured Bitcoin strategy—perhaps a reserve pilot—could strengthen economic resilience and project modernity. As the US advances and nations like Bhutan adapt, India has a unique opportunity to lead.(Pradeep Bhandari is a national spokesperson of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Views expressed are personal.)- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Cryptocurrency Live News & Updates : Trump Discusses U.S.-Europe Trade Challenges
29 Jun 2025 | 01:50:11 AM IST U.S. President Donald Trump acknowledged positive relations with Europe but highlighted significant trade challenges, including heavy taxes and legal actions against American firms. In recent news, U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the complexities of trade relations with Europe, noting the imposition of heavy taxes and legal disputes affecting American companies. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency sector is witnessing a surge in venture capital funding, with startups raising $739.5 million across 17 deals, led by Kalshi's impressive $185 million Series C round. The NFT market is also rebounding, with sales reaching $125 million, as Ethereum surpasses Polygon in sales volume. Bitcoin continues to show strength, recently hitting the $107,000 mark. Additionally, Elon Musk has shared his optimistic outlook on economic growth driven by advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics, suggesting a future of significant surplus. These developments reflect a dynamic landscape in both trade and technology, highlighting the interconnectedness of global markets and innovation. Show more
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. multinationals from global minimum tax
The Group of Seven nations said on Saturday (June 28, 2025) they have agreed to exempt U.S. multinational companies from a global minimum tax imposed by other countries — a win for President Donald Trump's government, which pushed hard for the compromise. The deal will see U.S. companies benefit from a "side-by-side" solution under which they will only be taxed at home, on both domestic and foreign profits, the G7 said in a statement released by Canada, which holds the group's rotating presidency. The agreement was reached in part due to "recently proposed changes to the U.S. international tax system" included in Mr. Trump's signature domestic policy bill, which is still being debated in Congress, the statement said. The side-by-side system could "provide greater stability and certainty in the international tax system moving forward," it added. Nearly 140 countries struck a deal in 2021 to tax multinational companies, an agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). That agreement, deeply criticized by Trump, includes two "pillars," the second of which sets a minimum global tax rate of 15 percent. The OECD must ultimately decide to exempt the U.S. companies from that tax — or not. The G7 said it looked forward to "expeditiously reaching a solution that is acceptable and implementable to all." On Thursday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had signalled that a "joint understanding among G7 countries that defends American interests" was in the works. He also asked US lawmakers to "to remove the Section 899 protective measure from consideration in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill" — Mr. Trump's policy mega-bill. Section 899 has been dubbed a "revenge tax," allowing the government to impose levies on firms with foreign owners and on investors from countries deemed to impose unfair taxes on U.S. businesses. The clause sparked concern that it would inhibit foreign companies from investing in the United States.
