Companies are increasingly holding Bitcoin as a reserve asset, a trend pioneered by MicroStrategy. By mid-2025, publicly traded companies held around one million Bitcoin. But this practice might be riskier than it seems.
The Illusion of Financial Sovereignty
While some see corporate Bitcoin holdings as a path to financial independence, the reality is more complex. Financial analysts like Charles Schwab highlight the investment potential of these companies, but they largely ignore the crucial issue of financial sovereignty. The focus is on using Bitcoin to boost stock prices, not on empowering individuals to control their own Bitcoin.
Why Corporate Bitcoin is Vulnerable
The key problem? These companies aren’t truly independent. They are publicly traded, meaning they are subject to government regulation and oversight. Accountants, lawyers, and executives all answer to regulators, making these companies prime targets for government intervention.
Government Precedent for Takeovers
Governments have a history of seizing assets, especially during times of crisis. The US government’s actions during World War I and II, including the nationalization of railroads and other industries, serve as a stark example. The 1933 Executive Order 6102, forcing citizens to surrender their gold, is another relevant precedent. More recent examples include government interventions in the banking sector and the auto industry.
The seizure of Montgomery Ward during WWII is particularly telling. The company’s chairman, Sewell Avery, famously defied the government, a stance that might resonate with some Bitcoin maximalists. However, his defiance didn’t save his company from nationalization.
The Growing Threat of CBDCs
The rise of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) further underscores the threat. With 90% of central banks developing CBDCs, governments are clearly viewing Bitcoin as a potential challenge to their control over the monetary system. If Bitcoin threatens fiat currencies, corporate Bitcoin holdings could become attractive targets for nationalization.
Public Sentiment Favors Nationalization
Adding to the risk, a significant portion of the public supports nationalization in various sectors. This sentiment, evident in support for nationalizing fossil fuel companies or healthcare, suggests a willingness to accept government control over key assets.
Self-Custody: The Safer Alternative
The bottom line? While corporate Bitcoin holdings might offer some investment opportunities, they carry a significant risk of government seizure. For true financial sovereignty, individuals should prioritize self-custody of their Bitcoin, holding their own private keys and avoiding reliance on third-party custodians.