Last Tuesday, Congressman Nick Begich (R-AK) introduced The BITCOIN Act of 2025 to the U.S. House of Representatives. He made the announcement that he’d be doing so at the Bitcoin For America summit.
The bill, a revised version of a bill that Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) introduced to the Senate last year, stipulates that the United States government acquire 1 million bitcoin for its Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and protects the right of U.S. citizens to self custody their bitcoin.
As Rep. Begich spoke about the importance of the bill at the summit, I got the impression that he was acting as more than just an opportunist, a politician simply striking while Bitcoin is a hot topic in the U.S. government, but as someone who actually has a deep understanding of Bitcoin.
Turns out, I was right. The Congressman has held his own bitcoin in self custody for over 12 years now and very much understands the importance of U.S. citizens being legally permitted to do the same. Furthermore, he believes that in an age of “undisciplined bureaucracy” and reckless spending, it’s important for the U.S. government to hold bitcoin, as it will serve as a backstop to our financial system.
On a personal level, when did you first begin to see the value in Bitcoin?
In late 2012. I was reading an article on Slashdot.org regarding Bitcoin and the forthcoming halvening, and it piqued my interest. I started digging in a little further and decided that I wanted to learn more about how this digital asset worked. So, I wired the $100 over to Mt. Gox, and I bought seven bitcoin. Afterward, I transferred them over to a private wallet. I wanted to understand how Bitcoin worked, because I owned a software development company and spent 20 years in technology as a career before coming to Congress. This was just interesting to me.
So, you were just fulfilling your curiosity?
Yes, but also, a couple of days later, I called my business partners and told them that I thought bitcoin could become something really big. They had never heard of it. I said “I’m going to take $5,000, and I’m going to buy bitcoin.” I took that money from our software business and bought more bitcoin on Mt. Gox. We ended up with 440 bitcoin. So, when the exchange went under, of course it was a huge disaster, because all of that bitcoin was still on the exchange. A number of us who were creditors found each other and we put a group together to hire an attorney in Japan. We were one of the creditors that petitioned the courts successfully. Japan changed the bankruptcy type from an obliteration to a civil rehabilitation, which allowed creditors to receive a portion of their bitcoin back.
Did you get some of it back then?
Ultimately, I sold our company’s claim to Fortress. But I still hold my own original seven bitcoin.
What was your impetus in introducing The BITCOIN Act to the House last week?
For years, I’ve thought that the United States government should have a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The reason I believe it’s important is because when you look at the universe of available reserve assets, the lion’s share of them can be printed at will by a centralized authority. As a corollary to gold, bitcoin reminds us that there is value in scarcity, and scarce assets are the sorts of assets that belong in a reserve because they’re the defense against an undisciplined bureaucracy. What we’ve seen not just in the last several years but in the last several decades, is a federal government that will print dollars to solve problems. And, in doing so, it’s created bigger problems. That’s why holding the gold that we’ve held all these years is so important, and that’s why holding bitcoin going forward will also be important. Both provide us with a financial backstop of a scarce resource that can’t be created by an executive action or Congressional action, which imposes discipline on the financial system. Congress has not demonstrated a sustained ability to impose financial discipline and keep the government in its Constitutional lane. As a result, ultimately the math will not add up. The United States cannot sustain a 125% debt-to-GDP ratio. The United States will be unable to continue to deficit spend at the levels that we have over the last several decades. Our gold reserves and a future bitcoin reserve provide the United States and its people with a fallback mechanism should the debt-based fiat system collapse.
In your mind, what is the likelihood that The BITCOIN Act becomes law?
The likelihood is growing, and the reason I believe that is because a) there are more people in Congress today who understand what Bitcoin is than ever before, b) there are more people in Congress today who understand just how precarious our current debt and deficit is, and c) there’s a growing awareness among the public that holding a scarce asset in addition to gold is a wise diversification of our national strategic reserve. For those three reasons, the time is right. Seeing the number of cosponsors that have already come in from the Senate and the House is encouraging. And I will tell you that there’s significant interest among others in Congress who haven’t yet decided to cosponsor in learning more about the legislation and how it can be a backstop for the United States.
The bill states that the government should acquire 1 million bitcoin — 5% of the supply — over the next five years, which was also the math in the initial version of the bill. Why five years and why 1 million bitcoin?
If you look at the total amount of gold held in reserve by central banks relative to the total supply of gold, it’s estimated to be about 5% to 15%. So, as a reserve asset, that 5% to 15% zone for a global centralized bank aggregated total makes sense. The reason why five years makes sense is because what you don’t want to do is introduce a demand shock to the system that causes short- to mid-term volatility. It’s also important to remember the United States government is not a day trader. It recognizes that it needs to be methodical, thoughtful, and predictable in the way in which it acquires that asset. That’s why I think a five-year period versus say a one-year or 18-month period is more appropriate.
The bill also stipulates that the U.S. establish a proof of reserves system. Will this look something like El Salvador’s proof of reserves system, one in which the government’s Bitcoin address is made public?
100%. Yes. One of the challenges that we’ve had with Fort Knox is that there’s no way for the public to audit the reserves, and so you’ll often hear people say that they don’t believe we have the gold we say we do or perhaps we even have more than we say we do. There’s no way for a citizen of the United States to know with confidence that the United States has the gold that it says it has. Bitcoin provides us with mechanisms for continuous proof of reserves so that every citizen of the United States can know for a fact that we have the bitcoin we say we have.
What do you imagine to be the design of the United States’ cold storage setup?
The bill outlines that those regulations and technical practices will be developed in consultation with industry experts, which I think is appropriate. However, based on my own experience with Bitcoin, I believe it’s very important that a) we’re talking about cold storage, and b) that we’re talking about thousands of separate cold storage wallets. It’s also important that the keys for those wallets be held in different physical locations, and that we use the Shamir backup system, which is a mechanism where, as long as you have two of the three pieces of a key, you can reassemble the key. What you don’t want is to have a complete key in one physical location, because, if it’s compromised, someone would be able to access that wallet. You want a diversified key strategy so that you would need to reassemble the keys from multiple physical locations for each individual wallet. That is the most secure deep cold storage solution that I’m aware of.
The bill also protects U.S. citizens’ right to self custody their bitcoin. In your mind, why is self custody so important?
It’s important because if you look back at what the United States government did with gold in the early 20th century with Executive Order 6102, they nationalized the asset. You were not permitted to own gold outside of jewelry. They essentially confiscated the wealth of the people. We do not want to see a repeat of that ever in the United States, whether it’s with gold or anything else. I think continuing to assure the public in law that we have a fundamental right to self custody our own wealth is an important restatement of our Constitutional rights.
Are you familiar with the Samourai Wallet and Tornado Cash cases, which are cases in which developers may be put on trial for creating and maintaining Bitcoin and crypto mixers?
I’m not familiar with them. I know what mixers are, but I don’t know about Samourai Wallet. Mixers have been around for a long time.
Yes, they have. What are your thoughts on them?
Well, I think the question is: “Where do you draw the line on the base layer and subsequent layers?” If you think about Bitcoin versus other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin has unique characteristics as a store of value. Whereas other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum have multiple layers in which logic for transaction restriction can be applied. In my view, you don’t wanna have transaction restrictions baked into the base layer of a store of value cryptocurrency like Bitcoin because it allows centralized control from an authority, which fundamentally defeats the fungibility aspect of it.
Do you have any final thoughts you’d like to share?
I’m excited for this legislation. I think it’s important for the nation. And I look forward to the Bitcoin community being an advocate with their members of Congress and their senators. I’m one person. Senator Lummis is one person. We have cosponsors. That’s fantastic. But we need the Bitcoin community to continue to educate and inform the rest of Congress so that we can move this legislation to President Trump’s desk where he can sign it into law.
