2024 was a pivotal year for the legitimacy of Bitcoin in regulated finance, and, therefore, for its general social acceptance. Let us remember that until 2023 the financial landscape was very hostile to Bitcoin in the US, with a government that almost openly hindered the interaction between the cryptoeconomy and traditional finance in what was known as Operation Choke Point 2.0. 

2024 gave us what seemed like a 180° turn in these policies: first with the approval of Bitcoin investment funds; later with a presidential candidate who put the first cryptocurrency as the axis of his campaign. In addition to that, 2024 was a halving year, which has historically inaugurated a bullish cycle starting 6 months after said event; something that happened this year as well, giving Bitcoin new historical highs above one hundred thousand dollars. 

All of this created a climate of general optimism among Bitcoiners, in which it seemed that the establishment was already in our favor. 

A disheartening end of the year

In the last month of 2024, a series of news from the institutional sphere partially brought down that optimistic feeling. The first was that the director of the Federal Reserve said in an interview that the agency is not authorized to buy bitcoins, nor is it interested in changing that at the moment. While this is not serious, nor is it unexpected, it was a bucket of cold water for those who thought that Trump's plan was just around the corner. 

Perhaps more relevant news was Microsoft's refusal to start a bitcoin acquisition strategy. This showed us that despite investment funds and the success of some bitcoin reservation strategies such as MicroStrategy's, large technology corporations still remain skeptical about BTC. 

But the one I consider most relevant of all were El Salvador's concessions to the International Monetary Fund. The IMF is known, particularly by the more progressive sectors, as the face of the neoliberal order or of American colonialism. This notion is shared by radical Bitcoiners committed to human rights, such as Alex Gladstein in this note. The feeling is reciprocal, since the organization has attacked Bitcoin since practically always.  

The discouraging thing about what happened with the government of El Salvador is that it had turned to Bitcoin as a way to free itself from the financial dominance of the US through the dollar and from its dependence on these types of organizations. But, needing a loan from the fund, it had to comply with its conditions, sacrificing part of the space of autonomy that it had managed to establish. 

The challenges for 2025

The case of El Salvador shows us first-hand how the non-coiner establishment acts to maintain the hegemony of the dollar on the international level, particularly in Latin America. Another such case, albeit more subtle, is Argentina, where the IMF made discouraging the use of cryptocurrencies a condition of its agreement with the country.  

Even if the Argentine government were a Bitcoiner (which it is not), its hands would still be tied by the organization, under penalty of default. That is why, continuing with the Argentine case, the so-called currency competition is confused with the dollarization plan. It is expected (and encouraged) that it will be the US currency that takes center stage, before Bitcoin or any other. 

Without wishing to enter the realm of conspiracy theories, a new strategy by the establishment to maintain control can be seen on the horizon, not by rejecting Bitcoin, but by trying to monopolize it. There is a corporate sector pushing for a massive adoption of Bitcoin, but only as a means of saving, leaving the dollar as a currency. Trump's victory and his promise to create a strategic Bitcoin reserve for the US, perhaps partly inspired by Jason Lowery, perfects this plan, bringing the State into play as well.  

While not part of the new government or having much influence in it, Michael Saylor recently discussed a plan for the US to take over the Bitcoin network and turn the dollar into a global CBDC. 

"So my strategy would be – and I really think it's an evil genius strategy – it's so good that our enemies would hate us, but our allies would complain too. And the US would make $100 trillion in no time. 

Here’s the strategy: You get rid of gold, you demonetize the entire gold network. You buy bitcoin – 5 million or 6 million bitcoins – and you monetize the Bitcoin network. All the capital in the world, sitting in Siberian real estate or Chinese natural gas or any other derivative that is held as a long-term store of value – Europeans, Africans, South Americans, Asians, they all just dump their shitty property and shitty capital assets and buy bitcoin. The price of bitcoin goes to the moon. 

The U.S. is the big beneficiary. American companies are the big beneficiaries. And as you do that, you normalize and support digital currency, and you simply define digital currency as the U.S. dollar backed by U.S. dollar equivalents in a regulated and audited U.S. custodian. What happens next? 

150 billion stablecoins becomes $1 trillion, $2 trillion, $4 trillion, probably $8-16 trillion, and you create $10-20 trillion of demand for US sovereign debt. 

While you're taking away some of the demand because the capital asset of bitcoin is growing, you're adding back the demand to support the stablecoin. [The US digital dollar then] replaces the CNY, the ruble. It replaces all the African currencies. It replaces all the South American currencies. It replaces the euro. 

If you truly believe in the US world reserve currency and US values, every single currency in the world would actually merge with the US dollar if it were freely available. 

Michael Saylor – Founder of MicroStrategy

While there is no indication yet that anything like this is in the works, it is significant that the most prominent Bitcoin influencer of the moment is openly discussing it, with much of the space talking about his Bitcoin interests and those of the United States as if they were one and the same , so matter-of-factly. 

In conclusion, I believe that 2025 will be a bullish year and one of greater legitimacy for the first cryptocurrency. We must embrace that success and continue to build on it, each from their own place. And we must hold firm to the spirit of decentralization that characterizes the space. The institutionalization of Bitcoin is beneficial, but we must not make concessions and hand them the network on a silver platter just for the promise of enriching ourselves. Bitcoin is a new institutionality, a new social contract, and therefore it is those organizations that must transform themselves, those that eat from Bitcoin's hand, and not the other way around.