What Is the American Reserve Monetary Assets (ARMA) Act and How Could It Affect the Market?

Foresight NewsPublicado a 2026-06-15Actualizado a 2026-06-15

Resumen

**Summary of the ARMA Act and Its Potential Market Impact** The American Retirement and Monetary Advancement (ARMA) Act, a legislative evolution from earlier proposals like the BITCOIN Act, represents a significant political compromise regarding a US strategic Bitcoin reserve. Initially, proposals in 2024-2025 called for the mandatory purchase of 1 million BTC over five years. However, facing opposition due to fiscal cost, concerns over dollar supremacy, and executive branch resistance, these ambitious acquisition plans were scaled back. ARMA, introduced in 2026, removes all mandatory purchase requirements. Its core provisions are twofold: it consolidates federally held Bitcoin (approx. 320,000 BTC from criminal and civil seizures) into a single Treasury-managed reserve and legally prohibits its sale for at least 20 years, with an exception only for debt repayment. This essentially codifies into law the holding policy established by a 2025 Trump executive order. Consequently, the bill's short-term market impact is expected to be limited. While it would eliminate the overhang of potential government selling, it creates no new direct demand from the Treasury. Its primary significance is strategic and long-term. By establishing a legal framework that formally recognizes Bitcoin as a national reserve asset, ARMA could pave the way for future, more substantive debates on mandatory acquisitions. The act is seen as a foundational step, increasing the political viability of eventu...

Written by: Tiger Research(@tiger_research_)

Compiled by: AididiaoJP, Foresight News

The topic of a U.S. strategic bitcoin reserve has circulated for nearly two years. The core of the original BITCOIN Act (introduced in 2024) was proactive government purchases, whereas the ARMA bill contains no such provisions. Whether the market should view this as positive remains an open question.

Key Takeaways

An executive order signed by Trump in March 2025 pledged not to sell federally held bitcoin but did not mandate new purchases. Market expectations were higher, and when the order's content became clear, the bitcoin price immediately fell by 5.7%.

Legislative efforts since 2024 have significantly softened over the past two years: from a bill requiring the purchase of 1 million BTC to a bill that merely contains custody obligations with no purchase requirements whatsoever.

The most likely to pass currently, the American Reserve Monetary Assets (ARMA) Act, is not a purchase bill. Instead, it prohibits the government from selling any of its currently held bitcoin for at least 20 years.

ARMA's short-term impact on the bitcoin market is limited. In the long run, however, legally establishing bitcoin's status as a national reserve asset could reopen the discussion on mandatory purchases, which would be positive for the market.

Background: What the U.S. Has and Hasn't Done

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to establish a bitcoin strategic reserve, which the market interpreted as the federal government becoming a direct buyer.

Post-election, on March 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order designating bitcoin obtained through criminal investigations and civil forfeiture as a strategic reserve and directing its permanent retention. The order did not direct the acquisition of new bitcoin; it only promised not to sell what the government already owned. Once the order's content was clear, the bitcoin price dropped from around $92,000 to below $85,000.

At the time of signing, the federal government held approximately 190,000 BTC, about 0.9% of the total 21 million supply. All this bitcoin came from criminal and civil proceedings, not a single coin was purchased.

The situation remains unchanged. Beyond the executive order, nothing has been enacted into law.

Legislative History

Discussions beginning in 2021 produced the first concrete bill in 2024, which was reintroduced in 2025 and restructured into ARMA in 2026. The main theme of this evolution has been constant compromise with political reality: the mandated purchase amount has diminished from something to nothing. Each revision made passage more feasible but simultaneously reduced market impact.

2024: The Original Bill

Senator Lummis has publicly advocated for including bitcoin in the federal reserves since entering the Senate in 2021. There was no consensus in Congress at the time, and the crypto winter of 2022-2023, compounded by the FTX collapse, made the environment even less favorable.

The situation changed in 2024 as bitcoin broke $100,000 and spot ETFs received regulatory approval. In July of that year, Lummis introduced the first specific legislation: requiring the purchase of 1 million bitcoins within five years, to be held for at least 20 years, funded by a Federal Reserve surplus account.

One million BTC represents 4.76% of the total supply, surpassing MicroStrategy's reported holdings of about 840,000. The bill automatically expired at the end of that Congress.

2025: Reintroduction and Stalled Progress

In March 2025, the same month as the executive order, Lummis reintroduced the BITCOIN Act as Senate Bill S.954. The core structure remained unchanged: annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, totaling 1 million over five years, held for 20 years. The revised version removed certain exemptions from disposal bans, tightened holding obligations, and added four cosponsors.

Market reaction was generally positive, but the bill faced substantial resistance on three fronts:

Fiscal Cost: At the time, 1 million bitcoins were valued at trillions of won. Fiscal conservatives within the Republican Party viewed gold as a stable store of value and bitcoin as a speculative asset, opposing any mandatory purchase structure.
Dollar Primacy: Democratic critics led by Representative Maxine Waters argued that treating bitcoin as a reserve asset would weaken the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency.
Treasury Secretary's Position: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated the government would not pursue additional bitcoin purchases. As the official responsible for enforcing the law, he had already expressed opposition.

The bill has remained in the Senate Banking Committee ever since.

2026: ARMA as Legislative Compromise

In May 2026, Representative Nick Begich introduced the American Reserve Monetary Assets (ARMA) Act, with Democratic Representative Jared Golden joining as a cosponsor. The name change itself was strategic: aimed at distancing the bill from the associations that made previous legislation difficult to advance and broadening its coalition of supporters.

ARMA does two things: it consolidates all bitcoin currently held or forfeited by the federal government into a single reserve managed by the Treasury Department, and it prohibits the sale of this bitcoin for at least 20 years. The only exception to the disposal ban is its use for repaying the national debt.

The decisive difference from its predecessor is what ARMA does not contain. The BITCOIN Act mandated annual purchases of 200,000 BTC, while ARMA completely eliminates this obligation. Instead, it directs the Treasury and Commerce Departments to study and report within 180 days whether additional purchases can be achieved in a budget-neutral manner. The study is a task, not a purchase mandate.

ARMA is essentially a custody and hold bill, not an acquisition bill. Its structure is adjusted to achieve passage.

Short-Term Outlook: Limited Market Impact

Currently, two bills are moving through Congress in parallel. The BITCOIN Act (S.954) is in the Senate Banking Committee; ARMA is in the House. Their objectives differ: the BITCOIN Act is an acquisition bill, ARMA is a custody bill.

ARMA has a higher probability of passing. The BITCOIN Act has been stalled in committee for over a year, burdened by fiscal cost and exclusively Republican support. ARMA has Democratic support and imposes no purchase obligations, removing the most common objections.

Even so, ARMA's passage itself would not constitute a short-term positive for the bitcoin market. If ARMA were to take effect, the approximately 320,000 BTC currently held by the federal government would be legally barred from entering the market for at least 20 years. The pressure of potential government selling would disappear. But the issue is: with no purchase mandate, there is no new demand. The market wants direct government purchases of bitcoin, which ARMA does not provide. Its actual effect is closer to codifying the March 2025 executive order into statute.

The key lies in what might follow ARMA. Nick Begich, a bitcoin holder since 2013, was a House cosponsor of the BITCOIN Act in March 2025. He publicly supports bitcoin as a strategic asset. ARMA's structure suggests a phased approach rather than a one-step solution: first establish the legal framework, then build acquisition mandates upon it.

If ARMA passes, formally establishing bitcoin's legal status as a national reserve asset, the debate on mandatory purchases will likely reopen on a firmer foundation. The path to this outcome is longer than the market initially priced following Trump's campaign promises, but the direction has not changed.

In short, the impact of ARMA's passage on price is limited in the short term. In the long term, it remains a constructive factor for the market. If ARMA passes, the probability of eventual purchase legislation becomes more visible.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the American Retirement and Monetary Advancement (ARMA) Act, and how does it differ from the initial BITCOIN Act?

AThe American Retirement and Monetary Advancement (ARMA) Act is a legislative proposal from 2026. Its key provisions are to consolidate all federally held or forfeited Bitcoin into a single reserve managed by the Treasury and to prohibit the sale of those holdings for at least 20 years. The decisive difference from the initial BITCOIN Act (proposed in 2024 and 2025) is that ARMA contains no mandate for the government to purchase new Bitcoin. The BITCOIN Act required the acquisition of 1 million BTC over five years. ARMA is therefore a custody and holding bill, not an acquisition bill.

QWhat was the immediate market reaction to Trump's March 2025 executive order on Bitcoin, and why did it occur?

AThe immediate market reaction was negative, with the Bitcoin price dropping approximately 5.7% from around $92,000 to under $85,000. This occurred because the executive order only designated Bitcoin obtained through criminal and civil forfeiture as a strategic reserve and ordered its permanent holding. It did not instruct the government to acquire new Bitcoin. The market had previously interpreted campaign promises as implying federal purchases, so the lack of a buying mandate in the order led to disappointment and a sell-off.

QWhat are the main political and practical obstacles that prevented the original BITCOIN Act from advancing in Congress?

AThe main obstacles were: 1) Fiscal Cost: The cost of purchasing 1 million Bitcoin was seen as prohibitively high, drawing opposition from fiscal conservatives. 2) Dollar Hegemony: Critics, especially Democrats, argued that recognizing Bitcoin as a reserve asset could undermine the US dollar's status as the global reserve currency. 3) Treasury Secretary's Stance: In August 2025, Treasury Secretary Bessent publicly stated the government would not pursue additional Bitcoin purchases, creating an executive branch roadblock for a law mandating purchases.

QWhat is the primary short-term market impact expected if the ARMA Act is passed?

AThe primary short-term market impact of ARMA's passage is expected to be limited. While it would legally lock up the government's existing ~320,000 BTC holdings for at least 20 years, removing potential future selling pressure, it creates no new direct demand because it imposes no purchase obligations. Its effect would be largely to codify the status quo established by the 2025 executive order into law, without the new buyer the market was hoping for.

QHow does the article frame the potential long-term significance of the ARMA Act for the Bitcoin market?

AThe article frames ARMA's long-term significance as a constructive, foundational step. If passed, it would formally establish Bitcoin's legal status as a national reserve asset. This foundation could then reopen and reframe the debate about mandatory government purchases on a more solid legal and political basis. The path to eventual acquisition legislation would become longer but more visible, representing a phased approach rather than an immediate, politically infeasible mandate.

Lecturas Relacionadas

The DeepSeek Financing Story

DeepSeek's financing round, totaling approximately 3 billion USD, concluded recently, revealing details about the process and key investors. The round was initiated around April with strict initial terms: a minimum commitment of 5 billion RMB, no syndication, and a pure RMB structure. These were later relaxed, with the minimum ticket size reduced to 1.5 billion RMB. A pivotal four-hour online investor meeting in mid-May served as the primary interaction for many backers with DeepSeek's founder, Liang Wenfeng. Despite not being a naturally eloquent speaker, Liang's philosophy deeply resonated. He consistently emphasized the company's singular focus on AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), the principle of "less is more," extreme caution in spending, and the paramount importance of team stability. His notable quotes included describing the team as "ordinary people doing extraordinary things" and stating that "AGI is a big enough thing; everything else is just process." The final investor list featured 10 entities, but underlying fund structures indicate participation from nearly 100 institutions and individuals. Notable lead investors include Monolith Capital (increasing its commitment from 1.5 to 3 billion RMB), Zhenxingu Capital, IDG Capital, and state-affiliated investors like Guozhitou. Conspicuously absent were major firms like Sequoia China and Hillhouse Capital, despite earlier speculation about their involvement. A core condition set by Liang Wenfeng for all investors, whether corporate or venture capital, was a strict prohibition against poaching DeepSeek employees or encouraging them to leave to start ventures. The financing process highlighted DeepSeek's unexpected openness to external capital, surprising many in the investment community. The company's low-profile nature, combined with its ambitious AGI vision and principled approach, fostered a sense of reverence among participating investors, many of whom were reluctant to discuss the deal publicly, preferring to maintain its discreet and purposeful ethos.

链捕手Hace 9 min(s)

链捕手Hace 9 min(s)

The DeepSeek Fundraising Story

"The DeepSeek Funding Story: Insights from the $2.15 Billion Round" This article details behind-the-scenes narratives from DeepSeek's recent massive funding round. Key highlights include the legendary four-hour online investor meeting where CEO Liang Wenfeng, despite not being a charismatic speaker, impressed attendees with his focus on AGI and team stability. He emphasized the philosophy of "ordinary people doing extraordinary things" and a steadfast commitment to solely advancing intelligence. The fundraising process, initiated in April, saw initial demands for a minimum investment of 5 billion RMB, no syndication, and a pure RMB structure. These terms were later adjusted to a 1.5 billion RMB minimum to accommodate more investors. A notable absence was the lack of participation from major VC firms Sequoia China and Hillhouse Capital, despite early rumors, making IDG the only established VC in the final lineup. The investor list, while showing 10 entities, actually involved nearly 100 underlying institutions and individuals upon closer examination. Significant participants included Monolith Capital, which doubled its commitment to 3 billion RMB, and Zhenxingu Capital, an unexpected entrant. Liang Wenfeng's paramount condition for all investors was a strict agreement not to poach DeepSeek employees. The article reflects on DeepSeek's unexpected openness to funding and the mix of strategies—synergy, insight, brand alignment, and persistence—that secured investors a stake. The overarching sentiment among participants is one of pride and a shared belief in DeepSeek's potential to become a landmark Chinese company, driven by a profound sense of purpose in the AGI race.

marsbitHace 11 min(s)

marsbitHace 11 min(s)

DAT Companies Take on Side Businesses

The article details the strategic shifts of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies amid a prolonged market downturn. Initially popularized by firms like MicroStrategy, the DAT model—where companies hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets—has faced significant pressure as crypto ETFs eroded their investment thesis and bear markets strained finances. Key players are adapting in several ways. Some, like ETHzilla, have abandoned the model entirely. Others are pivoting towards becoming active, revenue-generating participants in the crypto ecosystem rather than passive holders. This evolution is taking two main paths: 1. **Transformation into Institutional Crypto Asset Managers:** Companies like SharpLink Gaming and GameSquare are leveraging their holdings to generate yield, moving beyond simple storage. They employ strategies like 100% ETH staking or using machine learning to optimize DeFi yields, positioning themselves as platforms offering institutional-grade crypto yield products. 2. **Becoming Blockchain Infrastructure Operators:** This is prominent in the Solana ecosystem. Firms like DeFi Development and SOL Strategies are acquiring validator businesses, issuing liquid staking tokens (e.g., dfdvSOL, fwdSOL), and integrating them into DeFi protocols. They generate fee-based revenue from these operations, building network effects. The article notes that successful转型 hinges on building operational expertise and defensible business models around crypto assets, such as technical advantages or deep ecosystem integration. However, these new paths carry risks like smart contract vulnerabilities or ecosystem dependence. Ultimately, this collective shift signals a maturation phase for the DAT movement. It highlights that in crypto, sustainable value is increasingly tied to active participation, cash flow generation, and providing real utility, rather than speculative capital allocation alone.

Foresight NewsHace 14 min(s)

Foresight NewsHace 14 min(s)

Warsh's Debut Takes Shape: The Dot Plot Remains, but the Fed May Have Changed

The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady as expected in its June meeting, the first under new Chair Warsh. While the key dot plot of rate projections remained, Warsh notably did not submit his own forecast, signaling a deliberate move to weaken its forward guidance role. He emphasized a data-dependent approach, refusing to provide clear future policy signals and advocating for more restrained communication. The market interpreted this shift as heightening inflation constraints and the possibility of more aggressive tightening. Consequently, market pricing quickly adjusted: rate hike expectations for later in the year increased, U.S. stocks sold off, and the dollar strengthened. Warsh's debut suggests a fundamental change in Fed communication—moving away from "explaining the future" to merely "describing current assessments"—which could force markets to fundamentally reprice assets in a less predictable policy environment.

Odaily星球日报Hace 17 min(s)

Warsh's Debut Takes Shape: The Dot Plot Remains, but the Fed May Have Changed

Odaily星球日报Hace 17 min(s)

The Fate of Digital Banks: A Fancy App Can't Match a Banking License

**Title:** The Fate of Digital Banks: A Fancy App is No Match for a Banking License **Summary:** The article argues that digital-only "neobanks" have struggled to achieve profitability, with 76% still operating at a loss. Their core mistake was focusing on offering low-fee checking accounts, which generate minimal revenue from interchange fees. The fundamental profit engine of banking is **credit**—lending money and earning interest—a business largely restricted to licensed entities. Successful neobanks like **Nubank** and **Revolut** only became profitable by pivoting to become full-scale lenders, using their sleek apps as mere customer acquisition tools. Others, like **Chime**, suffered for years relying solely on transaction fees before embracing lending. The piece highlights the systemic risks of depending on third-party infrastructure, exemplified by the **Synapse** bankruptcy which froze millions in user funds. The only reliable safeguard is a **banking license**, which provides direct regulatory oversight and control over assets. This realization is now dawning in the cryptocurrency sector. Major firms like Paxos, Circle, and Crypto.com are actively seeking **national trust charters** from the OCC to legitimize their operations and escape dependency on traditional banking partners. Companies like **SoFi** have completed the evolution from fintech to licensed bank to stablecoin issuer. While DeFi has grown in secured lending, **unsecured lending** remains minuscule due to the lack of real-world identity and legal recourse for defaults on blockchain. Truly scaling credit likely requires a banking license. The conclusion is stark: despite promises of disruption, surviving digital banks have simply replicated the age-old banking model—profiting from interest on loans. A user-friendly interface changes the experience, but not the essential economics. In the end, a banking license is not an option but a necessity for sustainable operation.

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

The Fate of Digital Banks: A Fancy App Can't Match a Banking License

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros