[blandcoffee]

I think perhaps you may have misread the article.

Here are some items that stuck out to me:

> As for American gold holdings, they’re essentially pointless: Fort Knox is a legacy of the days when the U.S. promised to exchange gold for dollars on demand.

> More to the point, bitcoin was created to be an alternative to the dollar, not a support for it. Far from strengthening the dollar, having the U.S. purchase billions of dollars of assets that were created to be alternatives to the dollar would at best be economically pointless and at worst would actually weaken confidence in the dollar.

so why other than fort knox, are you advocating for this position?

[kjksf]

Gold is not just legacy.

Countries and banks (including central banks) are still buying gold as a hedge against dollar and other currencies.

For example, "from November 2022 to April 2024, China reported adding about 314 tons to its reserves, bringing the official total to 2,264 tons by mid-2024".

The logic for holding Bitcoin is the same as the logic for holding gold: a hedge against dollar and other currencies.

[blandcoffee]

You may be right, but I think China specifically has learned something from Russia.

Before invading Ukraine, Russia held assets across the world and they were frozen (some of it USD).

Now imagine you are a large holder of US treasuries, would you take some off the table and purchase this other asset (gold) that can ensure you're less susceptible to your enemies sanctions?

[desumeku]

Additionally, the proposed currency for BRICS is going to be partially backed by gold, assuming they still go ahead with it even with the threat of Trump's tarriffs.