Nic Carter, a Founding Partner at Castle Island Ventures, recently voiced his skepticism regarding the U.S. potentially creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve under an upcoming Trump administration. He raised concerns about the implications this could have on the dollar’s global status.
His comments didn’t go unnoticed. Matthew Sigel, who heads Digital Assets Research at VanEck, sharply countered Carter’s opinion, branding it as “Loserthink” in a direct response on social media.
During a recent Bloomberg interview, Carter expressed his belief in Bitcoin, yet he cautioned against the U.S. government signaling a shift from its current monetary policy. He elaborated on what a “strategic reserve” entails, emphasizing the difference between simply retaining confiscated Bitcoin and actively pursuing additional acquisitions, a strategy highlighted in some legislative proposals.
Carter argued that while the U.S. could hold on to its existing Bitcoin assets under Trump’s policy, the possibility of acquiring one million Bitcoin through Senator Cynthia Lummis’ proposed bill over five years lacked the support needed to pass Congress. He remarked, “The U.S. is the issuer of the global reserve currency. We shouldn’t do something that would call into question our own solvency.” This statement underscores his fear of destabilizing global markets if the U.S. appeared to be distancing itself from the dollar.
He noted that while smaller countries like Bhutan or El Salvador may stand to gain from adopting Bitcoin, such a strategy wouldn’t hold the same advantages for the U.S., given its crucial role in international finance.
As for Bitcoin’s remarkable price fluctuations, which peaked around $108,000, Carter acknowledged the excitement surrounding Trump’s potential crypto-friendly policies but warned that market expectations for a strategic reserve could lead to significant corrections if those hopes didn’t materialize. He humorously pointed out the challenges of being part of the Bitcoin community, saying, “The hardest thing about being a bitcoiner is you’re in the trade with a lot of delusional people.” His comment suggests that the market might be reflecting overly optimistic projections.
In a stark contrast, Sigel took to X to confront Carter’s cautious stance, stating, “This is Loserthink. Should the U.S. Government avoid any signals of fiscal restraint, then? In fact, why pretend at all—let’s just print trillions more and see where that gets us.” This rebuttal critiques what Sigel views as a conservative approach to Bitcoin adoption, equating it with a reluctance towards necessary fiscal responsibility or innovation in monetary practices.
As these discussions unfold, they highlight the stark divisions in opinion regarding the future of Bitcoin and its potential integration into U.S. monetary policy.
