The International Monetary Fund (IMF) used a staff blog on July 31 to state what everyone else was thinking: Bitcoin should now be included in the world's most important economic data. The article was timed to coincide with the UN Statistical Commission's adoption of the new System of National Accounts (SNA). It says, "Bitcoin, for example, has a real economic effect, in part because it takes a lot of energy to make." However, it isn't included in gross domestic product since it doesn't entail producing things or services in the conventional sense.

To fill up the void in that measurement, compilers have decided to "classify certain crypto assets as 'non-produced nonfinancial assets,' which are reflected in national wealth." Governments have decided to include Bitcoin in their balance sheets, not because they think it's worth anything. Being assessed alongside land and subsurface assets is a sign of institutional acknowledgment in the terminology that central banks and treasuries use for a technology that was formerly rejected.

The IMF's own social media post summed up the message in a manner that spread across BTC circles: "Bitcoin uses as much electricity as Argentina but isn't counted in GDP because it doesn't make traditional goods or services." That statement brings back a concept from prior IMF study that saw Bitcoin and AI as power-hungry industries whose effects governments need to know about, not dismiss.

In 2024, the Fund's blog said that BTC mining and data centers together used about 2% of the world's electricity in 2022. It also talked about policy tools, like taxing energy, to control emissions. Several summaries of the same analysis, based on IEA projections cited by IMF officials, show a baseline path toward about 3.5% by 2027. No matter what you think of the framing, the most important thing for markets is statistical visibility. Once an activity is measured in a clear way, it becomes part of the macro discourse about assets, flows, and external balances.

The external accounts make that visibility more stronger. The IMF's new Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7) includes Bitcoin in cross-border statistics by categorizing transfers of non-liability crypto like BTC as transactions in "non-produced nonfinancial assets." It also recognizes "validation services" as services, which is very important.

Draft chapters provide clear examples of how a miner or validator in Economy A is paid by a user in Economy B. This is documented as cross-border services trade. An addendum on revisions from BPM6 says that payments for validation are "recorded... as cross-border transactions in crypto assets payable... to the producer of the services." In real life, mining and staking sold to people who don't live in the country count as exports in the services account, while buying and selling BTC across borders counts as capital account transactions. For a long time, this industry has been seen as "off the books," therefore this is a big move.

Bitcoin-native speakers quickly made the point clear. David Bailey commented, "This is actually pretty big news—IMF officially incorporating bitcoin into [the] international development paradigm." He went on to say that "balance of trade, GDP, [and] sovereign credit quality… will now include bitcoin's economic footprint." Even if you just look at the most important parts, the point is clear: macro gatekeepers will be counting things that used to be hidden.

For Jan Wüstenfeld, a researcher at Melanion GreenTech, the stakes are as much about people as they are about numbers. He said, "BTC is the most effective way to turn energy into a lifeline for those who are suffering under IMF policies." He also said, "Nothing beats Bitcoin's energy-to-lifeboat ratio."

Daniel Batten, a climate researcher, took direct aim at the Fund's energy framing, labeling it "FUD" in a rallying cry—"Game on"—that shows how Bitcoin circles are seeing this moment: not as criticism, but as proof that the asset has become too important to ignore.

The Sustainable Bitcoin Protocol gave the most detailed response, saying that the word "energy-intensive" that many people used ignores the wider picture of formal integration. The organization said, "It's understandable that people are upset that @IMFNews says Bitcoin is 'energy-intensive,' but this is actually a good, turning point!"

The IMF recently made it official that BTC is a non-produced capital asset. Bitcoin is no longer hidden. It's something that even the IMF has to measure and report. That is making it legal. That's what visibility is. That's what macro adoption means. Their thread is similar to the BPM7 and SNA mechanics: once Bitcoin is recognized as a capital asset and its validation activity is booked as services, it is automatically included in balance-of-payments and national wealth data.

None of this indicates that the IMF has altered its mind on sovereign Bitcoin policy; it just means that the Fund is updating its data while still making its argument for risk. Batten's new study says that IMF leverage has actually made it harder for nation-states to embrace.

He talks about El Salvador's deal with the IMF, in which officials promised "not to accumulate further bitcoins 'at the level of the overall public sector,'" even though the National Bitcoin Office announced further acquisitions for a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve."

Batten also spoke about Pakistan, where a lot of news stories in early July reported that the IMF had turned down a proposal to give subsidized power for Bitcoin mining and other companies that use a lot of energy. Local and international news sites said that the idea was vetoed because of concerns about the electricity market and fiscal risk. However, Pakistan's electricity Division and the IMF promptly denied that any official rejection had taken place.

In light of that stance, the July 31 standards announcement is still clearly good for Bitcoin. There are two things that the IMF blog says that are important for asset allocators. First, it says that "certain crypto assets will be classified as 'non-produced nonfinancial assets,'" which means they would be included as part of measured national wealth. Second, it shows that BPM7 is being followed such that cross-border flows and validation-service revenues are recognized consistently in both external and national accounts.

#TrumpTariffs #MarketPullback #SECProjectCrypto #WhiteHouseDigitalAssetReport #FOMCMeeting $BTC $ETH $XRP