【The Trump administration's policy of linking 'virtual currencies to U.S. debt' is placed within the framework of political and economic games, combining the analytical logic of gold stability and Bitcoin stability, systematically deducing its strategic intentions, implementation paths, risk contradictions, and global impacts Three】
Three, Risks and Structural Contradictions: Policy Fragility Under High Volatility
1. The cryptocurrency market backlashes against U.S. debt credit
Volatility transmission: Bitcoin's 2025 retreat of 25% to $80,000, ETF daily redemption of $1.1 billion; if national reserves in Bitcoin plummet, it will directly impact fiscal debt repayment capacity.
Bank run chain reaction: Stablecoins rely on short-term U.S. debt liquidity; once decoupled (as USDC fell to $0.95 due to the Silicon Valley Bank crisis in 2023), it may trigger a wave of treasury sell-offs.
2. Conflict between sovereign credit and algorithmic power
Dollar value anchoring fragmentation: 43 U.S. states have declared gold as legal tender, weakening the uniqueness of the dollar; if Bitcoin bonds are promoted, it will further differentiate the 'fiat currency—gold—Bitcoin' triple anchoring system.
Regulatory arbitrage out of control: Private stablecoin issuers (such as Tether) have become the world's seventh-largest holder of U.S. debt, but their asset transparency is questionable (in 2021, they were fined $41 million for false reserves), and private interests may hijack national credit.