🚨🪙 "Never sell your Bitcoin" — when politicians start saying this, how should the market interpret it?

When Donald Trump stated that the U.S. government "sold tens of thousands of Bitcoins that could have been worth billions of dollars," and added "Never sell your Bitcoin," the market implications of this statement go far beyond a mere slogan.

First, let's look at the facts.

The U.S. government has indeed confiscated and auctioned large amounts of Bitcoin through law enforcement actions (such as the Silk Road case). Looking back at today's prices, these sales resulted in "missing out on a lot of profit" on paper. However, the policy logic at the time was not asset allocation but the legal disposal of confiscated property.

In other words:

That was not an investment decision; it was a law enforcement procedure.

What's truly worth pondering is the second layer of meaning —

Why are politicians now publicly emphasizing "don't sell Bitcoin"?

This reflects three structural changes.

First, Bitcoin has entered the mainstream political discussion framework.

From a fringe asset to part of the policy discourse system, this is a leap in narrative status.

Second, crypto assets are being redefined as "strategic reserve assets."

Although the U.S. has not yet established an official Bitcoin reserve system, the discussion has shifted from "how to regulate and restrict" to "whether the nation should hold."

Third, policy signals during the election cycle.

In the current market environment, a more crypto-friendly stance has clear significance for voters and capital markets.

But we must remain calm.

A single "Never sell your Bitcoin" does not equate to policy implementation.

What truly affects the market is:

Whether the regulatory framework is relaxed

ETF fund flows

Macro liquidity

Interest rate environment

The core drivers of Bitcoin's price remain liquidity and risk appetite, not a single political statement.

More importantly is the logical question.

If a nation truly views Bitcoin as a strategic reserve, what does that mean?

It will no longer be just a speculative asset

It will become part of macro asset allocation

Nation-level buying and selling will affect the supply structure

But for now, this remains at the discussion stage.

The market needs to distinguish between two things:

Political slogans,

and institutional change.

The signals truly worth observing are:

Whether formal "national Bitcoin reserve" proposals emerge

Whether there is legislative support for long-term government holding

Whether future auctions of confiscated assets are halted

If these happen, that would be a structural turning point.

Otherwise, this is more like an expression of political attitude, not a policy inflection point.

The question here is:

As Bitcoin gradually moves from being a "confiscated asset" into the realm of "national asset discussion," do you think this is driven by sentiment, or is it a prelude to institutional change?