Bitcoin Magazine
Senator Bill Hagerty: Expanding the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, & the Future of Dollar Hegemony
Senator Bill Hagerty says the only answer some in Congress have is a central bank digital currency, and that’s “absolutely not consistent with freedom and liberty.” In this in-studio interview, he explains how uncertainty let former SEC chair Gary Gensler attack the industry, why a light government touch helps innovation thrive, and what Congress can realistically get done before the new session in January.
Chapters:
00:00 Senator Bill Hagerty on What’s Next for the Clarity Act
01:38 Democrats, Ethics Provisions and the Stablecoin Rewards Debate
03:04 How the SEC and CFTC Are Regulating Crypto Without Congress
04:43 How the GENIUS Act Will Change Payments and Settlement
07:08 Stablecoins, Treasury Demand and U.S. Dollar Dominance
08:31 The U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and 200,000 Bitcoin
10:54 Why Americans Are Still Skeptical of Crypto
13:18 Bitcoin Mining, TVA and Tennessee’s Energy Buildout
17:14 Bitcoin Businesses in Nashville and Why CBDCs Threaten Freedom
18:36 What Congress Can Pass Before the New Session in January
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Senator Bill Hagerty: Expanding the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, & the Future of Dollar Hegemony first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
The Trump administration is trying to stop Utah from enforcing its gambling ban against Kalshi, making Utah the 10th state sued by the US government agency that regulates prediction markets.
Utah, which prohibits gambling, sued Kalshi in a state court last week. Utah's lawsuit seeks an order prohibiting Kalshi from offering bets on sports, elections, politics, and other events.
“Kalshi runs an online casino in Utah and calls it a prediction market. That violates Utah law,” Utah Attorney General Derek Brown, a Republican, said last week. “Not only do our state laws ban gambling but Utah is one of only two states where gambling is also prohibited under the state constitution. For 130 years, Utah has been clear: gambling has no place here, and we will enforce our laws.”
© Getty Images | Martin Lelievre
Bitcoin Magazine
Luxor Announces $16M Funding Round to Scale AI Compute, Derivatives
AI hardware is sold out, and the companies that cut their teeth in Bitcoin mining are moving in. Luxor just raised $16 million in a round led by CMT Digital to scale its cloud platform, GPU hardware business and compute trading. Ethan Vera of Luxor and Sam Hallene of CMT Digital join BMTV to explain why Bitcoin mining expertise translates so well into AI compute.
Chapters:
00:00 Luxor Raises $16M to Take Bitcoin Mining Expertise Into AI
01:17 Why CMT Digital Backed the Luxor Team
02:54 What Bitcoin Mining Teaches AI Infrastructure
03:48 Luxor Cloud: Runners, Sandboxes and Code Review
04:51 Sandboxes for AI Agents
05:43 GPU Demand: Nvidia Sold Out for the Year
07:12 Compute Derivatives and Liquidity for AI Markets
08:12 Luxor’s Full-Stack Compute Ecosystem
10:24 Why Luxor Chose Strategic Investors
12:08 Bitcoin Mining Is Still a Core Pillar
#Bitcoin #BTC #BitcoinMining #Luxor #EthanVera #SamHallene #CMTDigital #AI #AICompute #AIInfrastructure #GPU #Nvidia #AIAgents #DataCenters #ComputeDerivatives #BitcoinMiners #Compute #EnergyGrid #BMTV #BitcoinMagazine
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Luxor Announces $16M Funding Round to Scale AI Compute, Derivatives first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
Galaxy Asset Management: “Now Is The Time” to Buy Bitcoin
“We believe the bottom is in.” That’s the call from Galaxy’s head of firmwide research, Alex Thorn. Bitcoin closed back above its 50-week moving average the week of September 20 and has kept that trend, and Galaxy notes that the four prior reclaims after 20-plus weeks below never closed more than 8.4% under the reclaim level in the following year. Here’s why the whole call comes down to the 50-week moving average.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Galaxy Asset Management: “Now Is The Time” to Buy Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
Bitcoin Price “Climbing the Wall of Worry” – Early Signs of Bull Market | Michael Sullivan
Bitcoin is holding near $80K, yet the crowd has never seemed less excited and that might be the most bullish signal of all. Michael Sullivan, software engineer and author of Bitcoin Sentiment Weekly, breaks down what language-based sentiment data says about this market. He explains why excitement, conviction and desire are washed out to levels he compares to 2015, and why that looks like the early stages of a disbelief rally.
Chapters:
00:00 Michael Sullivan on Bitcoin and Currency Decay
00:58 Bitcoin’s Pullback From $86K: Is This a Disbelief Rally?
02:10 Bitcoin Sentiment Compared to 2015 and 2022
03:50 How to Tell When the Bitcoin Market Is Overheated
05:05 Measuring Excitement, Conviction and Desire in Bitcoin
06:42 The Next Bitcoin Bull Run Narrative: Bitcoin and AI
08:12 Investor Psychology: Buying Near All-Time Highs vs. DCA
09:42 Bitcoin and Traditional Finance Growing Together
10:54 Why Short-Term Bitcoin Holders Are So Frustrated
12:52 How AI’s Deflation Strengthens the Case for Bitcoin
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post Bitcoin Price “Climbing the Wall of Worry” – Early Signs of Bull Market | Michael Sullivan first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Bitcoin Magazine
BTC Hash Ribbon Signal Flipped: Bitcoin Miners Show the Bottom Might Be In
The hash ribbon recovered on August 26 and has held for 61 days. Historically, Bitcoin was higher one year later in six of seven counted recoveries, about a 72% edge. Sean Hagan breaks down the signal, the misses (15 of 231, notably April 2021 at -17%), the January signal still 12% underwater, and why the 30-day hash rate at roughly 1.1 ZH, up 13% from July, says the worst of the miner stress is behind us. Grace Remington asks the right question: if miners left voluntarily, is the signal still reliable?
Chapters:
0:00 The Hash Ribbon Explained: Counting Miner Capitulation Days Since 2011
0:26 A New Record: 223 of 365 Days in Capitulation vs. 141 in 2012
1:01 Why This Cycle Is Different: Miners Left for $100 Billion in AI Contracts
1:48 More Like the 2021 China Ban Than 2018 or 2022
2:14 The Timing Still Fits: Capitulation Peaked 56 Days After the June 30 Low
2:37 Hash Ribbon Recovered 61 Straight Days, Hash Rate Up 13% From the Low
3:20 Price Agrees: MVRV Above Its Average and Bitcoin Above the 50-Week
3:58 Is the Signal Reliable If Miners Left Voluntarily? Higher 6 of 7 Times
5:18 Could Hash Rate Come Back From AI as the Build-Out Hits Bottlenecks?
6:52 A Backward-Looking Chart With a 70%-Plus Directional Track Record
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post BTC Hash Ribbon Signal Flipped: Bitcoin Miners Show the Bottom Might Be In first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
For decades, gold has played an important role in how governments manage their financial reserves. Countries hold gold because it is a valuable asset that can be stored for the long term and may help diversify their reserves.
But what if Bitcoin started playing a similar role?
Bitcoin is different from gold in almost every practical way. It exists digitally, moves across a global network, and has a supply limit built into its design. Yet, some policymakers and investors believe these features could make it worth considering as a strategic asset.
The United States has already brought this idea into the policy discussion. But creating a Bitcoin reserve involves much more than simply buying some Bitcoin and keeping it in a digital wallet.
To understand why, it helps to look at how gold reserves work, what makes Bitcoin different, and what the potential benefits and risks could be.
Gold has been used as money and a store of value for thousands of years. Today, central banks and governments continue to hold it as part of their financial reserves.
These reserves can serve several purposes.
First, gold provides an asset that is not directly dependent on the financial condition of a single company or government. Second, it can help diversify a country’s reserve holdings. Third, gold has an established global market, making it possible to buy or sell it in many parts of the world.
However, gold is not risk-free. Its price can rise and fall, storing and transporting it requires physical security, and selling large quantities can take time.
Governments still hold gold because they consider its potential benefits useful over the long term.
This raises an interesting question: Could Bitcoin serve a similar purpose in the future?
Bitcoin is often called digital gold because both assets have limited supplies and can be held without depending on a traditional bank account.
But the similarities only go so far.
Gold is a physical asset. Bitcoin is a digital asset secured by a decentralized network.
Bitcoin’s protocol sets a maximum supply of 21 million coins. Gold, on the other hand, has no fixed total supply because new deposits can be discovered and mined.
Bitcoin can also be transferred across borders without physically moving anything. However, transactions require network confirmation, and access to the coins depends on properly managing the relevant cryptographic keys.
The biggest difference is price stability.
Gold has a long history as a reserve asset, while Bitcoin is much younger and has experienced significant price swings. Bitcoin’s price can change sharply in a short period, which makes it harder for governments to predict the value of their holdings.
For example, imagine a government holds Bitcoin worth $1 billion. If Bitcoin’s market price falls by 30%, the value of that holding would drop to $700 million, assuming the amount of Bitcoin remains unchanged.
The government would still own the same number of coins, but their market value would be lower.
This is one reason Bitcoin cannot simply be treated as identical to gold.
There is more than one way a government could accumulate Bitcoin.
One option is to retain Bitcoin obtained through asset seizures and legal proceedings instead of selling it. Another is to purchase Bitcoin through an authorized government program.
These approaches may sound similar, but they raise different questions.
Retaining seized Bitcoin means managing assets already in government custody. Purchasing Bitcoin requires a separate decision about funding, legal authority, and the use of public resources.
The distinction is important in the United States, where policymakers have been discussing how government-held Bitcoin should be managed and whether a more formal reserve framework should be established.
Coinpedia’s exclusive report examining whether the US could establish a Bitcoin reserve before January 3, 2027 explores the legislative timeline and the remaining hurdles facing the proposal. The central question is not simply whether the government can hold Bitcoin, but what legal framework would allow it to maintain a strategic reserve.
That difference matters because a policy proposal, an approved law, and an operational reserve are three separate stages. A proposal does not automatically mean that new Bitcoin purchases have been authorized or that a reserve is fully established.
Supporters of a Bitcoin reserve point to several possible benefits.
Governments generally try to avoid depending too heavily on one type of asset.
A Bitcoin reserve could provide another form of exposure alongside traditional holdings such as gold and foreign currencies. If Bitcoin becomes more widely accepted over time, supporters believe it could offer long-term diversification benefits.
However, diversification does not guarantee better returns. Bitcoin could fall in value at the same time that other financial markets experience stress.
Bitcoin’s supply limit is one of its most widely discussed features.
Unlike currencies that can be issued according to monetary policy, Bitcoin’s issuance follows rules built into its protocol. Its supply schedule is designed to approach a maximum of 21 million coins.
Supporters argue that this makes Bitcoin worth considering as a long-term asset.
But limited supply alone does not guarantee rising prices. Demand still matters. An asset can remain scarce while losing value if fewer people want to own it.
Digital assets and blockchain technology are becoming part of broader discussions about payments, financial infrastructure, and investment.
Holding Bitcoin could give a government direct experience with digital-asset custody and the practical challenges of managing a decentralized asset.
That experience might help policymakers better understand both the opportunities and the risks associated with the technology.
Still, a government does not need to hold Bitcoin to study blockchain technology or develop digital-asset regulations.
A Bitcoin reserve would also create challenges that governments would need to consider carefully.
Bitcoin can experience large price changes over short periods.
If a government holds a substantial amount of Bitcoin, a market downturn could reduce the reported value of its holdings. This could create political pressure, especially if taxpayers believe public resources are being exposed to unnecessary risk.
The long-term outcome would remain uncertain, even if Bitcoin had performed well over an earlier period.
Gold can be protected in secure physical facilities. Bitcoin requires a different kind of protection.
Access to Bitcoin depends on private keys. If those keys are lost, stolen, or improperly controlled, the assets could become inaccessible or be transferred without authorization.
A government reserve would therefore require strong security procedures, careful access controls, backup arrangements, and clear rules about who can authorize transactions.
The fact that Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network does not automatically make every wallet or storage system secure.
A national reserve would raise questions about who has the authority to acquire Bitcoin, how the holdings should be managed, and whether the government should ever sell them.
There would also be questions about transparency. Should the public receive regular reports on the amount held, the cost of acquisition, and changes in market value?
These decisions matter because a reserve is not just a collection of digital coins. It is a government policy that may affect public finances and future administrations.
Money used to purchase Bitcoin cannot be used for another purpose at the same time.
If a government spends public funds on Bitcoin, it must consider what else those funds could have supported. Even if Bitcoin rises in value, the decision should be evaluated against the alternatives available when the money was committed.
This is a basic principle of public finance: every major financial decision involves trade-offs.
A formal US Bitcoin reserve could influence how investors think about Bitcoin, but the actual effect would depend on the details.
For example, if the government retains Bitcoin it already owns, the immediate effect on market demand could be different from a policy that authorizes regular purchases.
If a government buys additional Bitcoin, those purchases could create new demand. If it simply holds existing coins rather than selling them, the market may instead focus on the amount of Bitcoin that remains available for trading.
Announcements could also affect expectations before any action takes place. Investors might interpret a reserve policy as a sign that Bitcoin is gaining recognition as a strategic asset.
However, expectations are not the same as actual buying activity.
Bitcoin’s price is influenced by many factors, including investor demand, interest rates, global liquidity, institutional investment, regulation, and market sentiment. A government reserve would be only one part of that picture.
It would also be a mistake to assume that other countries would automatically follow the United States. Governments have different financial priorities, regulatory systems, and levels of comfort with volatile assets.
This is perhaps the most interesting question in the entire debate.
Bitcoin was designed to operate without requiring a central authority to approve transactions or manage its supply. Its network can continue operating whether or not governments choose to hold it.
A national reserve would therefore not be necessary for Bitcoin to function.
Government participation could, however, influence how financial institutions, businesses, and investors view the asset. It could also bring more attention to the questions of regulation, custody, and long-term financial use.
At the same time, government involvement could create new political risks. Future administrations might change their approach, revise reserve policies, or decide that holding Bitcoin no longer fits their priorities.
Bitcoin’s future would still depend on whether people and institutions choose to use, hold, and value it.
Holding Bitcoin like gold is an interesting idea, but the two assets are not interchangeable.
Gold has a long history as a reserve asset, while Bitcoin offers a digital form of scarcity and can be transferred through a global network. Those features may make Bitcoin attractive to some policymakers, but its volatility, custody requirements, and uncertain long-term value create real challenges.
For the United States, the question goes beyond whether Bitcoin belongs in a government wallet. It involves deciding how the asset would be acquired, who would control it, what rules would govern its use, and how the public would be informed about the risks.
The most useful way to follow the debate is to separate announcements from legislation and legislation from implementation.
A Bitcoin reserve could become an important development in the relationship between governments and digital assets. But whether it proves to be a sound long-term strategy will depend on the policy behind it, the risks governments are willing to accept, and how the reserve is managed over time.
What Happens If the US Starts Holding Bitcoin Like Gold? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Bitcoin Magazine
CFTC Again Probes Polymarket Over Whether It Let Americans Trade
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is investigating whether Polymarket broke a 2022 enforcement settlement, according to Reuters reporting earlier today. The probe revives an inquiry the agency closed in 2025 without filing charges. For a platform that has tried to fit prediction markets inside US law, the question strikes at its core.
Polymarket settled with the CFTC in January 2022 and paid a $1.4 million penalty for offering event-based binary options without registration. The company agreed to block American users from its offshore exchange. Geofencing tools followed, but regulators and critics pointed to traders who reached the site through VPNs. The platform has also courted crypto natives, adding bitcoin deposits in October 2025 as part of a broader push to fund accounts with digital assets.
According to the sources, investigators are examining three areas: the adequacy of Polymarket’s location controls, its advertising inside the United States, and the onboarding and customer protections on its US platform, which launched late last year.
The company is headquartered in New York and runs its offshore exchange through a Panama-registered entity. A probe is an inquiry, not a finding, and many investigations end without enforcement.
The inquiry sits inside a wider effort. In June, the Wall Street Journal reported that Polymarket paid individuals to produce videos of fictitious winning bets, and senators Adam Schiff and John Curtis urged the agency to open a probe. Bloomberg reported that investigators were examining the company’s social media activity.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig has framed prediction markets as tools for hedging and information discovery, and he has argued that federal regulators, not states, should oversee them. Enforcement director David Miller has pledged tough policing of the sector.
Enforcement pressure has a test case. In April, prosecutors charged a US soldier, Gannon Ken Van Dyke, with making $400,000 from insider bets on the offshore platform. The indictment says he used a VPN and an “exit mode” that appeared to sit in a foreign country. Van Dyke has denied the charges, and Polymarket says it referred the matter to authorities.
Scale raises the stakes. Intercontinental Exchange, the parent of the NYSE, agreed in October 2025 to invest roughly $2 billion, and Bloomberg counted founder Shayne Coplan, 27, among the youngest self-made billionaires. The bigger the platform, the more its geographic walls matter.
Earlier this year, Polymarket’s five-minute Bitcoin up/down contract was exploited by a small group of traders who pushed Binance’s price in the final seconds before each close, according to a study. Just 821 wallets, about one in 300 traders, took $8.2 million in the pushed cycles, and 93% of the losses fell on retail bettors.
The authors of the study found no manipulation in the fifteen-minute contract, since a longer window dilutes a fixed push, a lesson that matters now that Nasdaq and Cboe have filed to list similar binary contracts on equity indices.
This post CFTC Again Probes Polymarket Over Whether It Let Americans Trade first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
UTXO’s Duke Waldrop: Bank of Japan “Liquidity Shock” Could Impact Bitcoin
Bitcoin fell to $79K this weekend, and this week both the Fed and the Bank of Japan decide on rates. Duke Waldrop, Head of Asia Markets at UTXO Management, joins Grace Remington and Sean Hagan to explain why a yen repricing hits Bitcoin first: macro funds with yen-denominated liabilities become forced sellers, and Bitcoin’s 24/7 liquidity is where they find the exit. He also breaks down why Metaplanet is trading below the value of its own Bitcoin, why possible removal from MSCI indexes on November 30 doesn’t change the thesis, and why the bet is on the Tokyo team’s execution.
Chapters:
0:00 Bitcoin at $79K, Fed and Bank of Japan Decisions, and Metaplanet Below NAV
0:29 How Asian Investors Are Learning the Treasury Playbook
1:16 The Yen Carry Trade and Why Bitcoin Sees the Liquidity Shock First
2:12 Who Sells First If the Bank of Japan Surprises: Overleveraged Macro Funds
2:58 Metaplanet’s Nasdaq Route Through Super League and the Second Liquidity Pool
3:46 Why Metaplanet Trades Below Its Bitcoin: Bitcoin Per Share Is the Metric
4:30 Asia Is “Way Behind” on Bitcoin Preferreds
5:32 MSCI Removal on November 30: Why It Changes Nothing Fundamental
6:57 Balance Sheet Caps, Delisting and Moon Inc.
8:45 Thailand, Astra’s Cash-Flow Model, Capital Group’s 11% and “The Moon, a Million”
This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Investments in digital assets involve significant risk and may result in loss of capital. Both UTXO Management and BTC Inc., producer of BMTV, are owned by Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA)
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this show are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of BTC Inc., Bitcoin Magazine, or any affiliated entities. This content is provided for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice. Nothing contained in this show constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments. Viewers should consult their own advisors before making financial or business decisions.
This post UTXO’s Duke Waldrop: Bank of Japan “Liquidity Shock” Could Impact Bitcoin first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Patrick Green.
Login