Bitcoin was built for financial freedom and privacy. With governments pushing for more oversight, the question remains whether money and state can separate peacefully.

The Financial Times published a piece this week titled “Why struggling companies are loading up on bitcoin.” At first glance it looks like a story about corporate adoption of the world’s leading digital asset. Read beyond the headline and a problem emerges. The article uses “Bitcoin” and “crypto” interchangeably, which gives the impression they are the same thing. The article includes high profile Bitcoin cases like MicroStrategy alongside firms acquiring other tokens such as Ether or Solana. It reports total figures for “crypto purchases” while presenting the trend as companies “loading up on bitcoin.” Warnings about systemic risk refer to companies holding crypto assets far above their revenues but do not distinguish between Bitcoin and other assets, which changes how the data can be interpreted. The difference matters because Bitcoin is not “crypto.” Bitcoin is a decentralised, fixed supply network with 16 years of uptime and a clear monetary policy. Crypto is a catch all for millions of tokens with very different levels of security, regulation, liquidity and purpose. A company adding bitcoin to its treasury as a long term reserve asset is not the same as one speculating on illiquid, high volatility altcoins. The risk profile, motives and signal to the market are different. When journalists blur these lines, the analysis loses its foundation. Readers are left with an oversimplified narrative that only holds together if Bitcoin and crypto are treated as one category. If an argument depends on merging those two worlds, it is not analysis. It is misdirection, and it is harmful. Many policymakers read mainstream articles like this, take the narrative at face value and form their views about bitcoin without consulting subject matter experts or reviewing primary data. This is how flawed coverage can end up influencing lawmaking. In 2018 the UK Treasury Select Committee’s report on “crypto-assets” grouped Bitcoin and altcoins into a single category, a framing that mirrored mainstream coverage at the time. That framing then became part of the political record and aligned with the concerns later cited by the FCA when it introduced a ban on crypto derivatives for retail investors. In the EU, early drafts of the MiCA legislation included language that would have effectively banned proof of work networks such as Bitcoin by subjecting them to strict environmental standards. These provisions reflected the narrative common in mainstream coverage at the time, which portrayed Bitcoin’s energy use without context. Media driven misconceptions about Bitcoin have already influenced regulation. If coverage like this continues to shape political understanding, the effort required to undo the damage will only grow, and Bitcoin will be regulated on fiction rather than fact, as it appears to have been so far. I am glad Bitcoin is getting attention from mainstream media, but not like this. Brandolini’s Law says it takes ten times the effort to correct misinformation as it does to produce it. If that pattern continues, the cost of fixing the damage will be enormous and the policy mistakes even more so. Read the full article:

Client Challenge

Tesla has applied to Ofgem for a licence to sell electricity to UK homes and businesses. Pair that with Powerwalls, Megapacks and Bitcoin mining and you have a perfect grid balancing tool that can soak up excess wind power and power down instantly when needed. At @BitcoinPolicyUK we have long argued this makes business sense and it clearly does. Why can’t our government and energy companies get on board? The challenge? UK politics, regulation and outdated mining FUD. The full BBC article:

BBC News

Musk's Tesla applies to supply power to British households

If approved by the energy watchdog Ofgem, it would allow the US firm to take on the UK's dominant suppliers.

Read our demand response paper: đź“„.pdf

We are throwing away clean energy while bills keep rising. Bitcoin mining can be a 24/7 buyer of last resort, turning wasted power into revenue, stabilising the grid and lowering bills without taxpayer subsidies. We’ve told the government and National Grid’s Future Energy Scenarios team. They aren’t listening. Read our paper on Bitcoin Mining as a Demand Side Flexible Response: 📄.pdf

Back from Baltic Honeybadger and feeling more inspired than ever. I moderated the State & Bitcoin panel and spent time with brilliant builders and educators tackling real problems and turning them into practical solutions. What struck me most is that we are all championing bitcoin in our own ways yet united in purpose. If you want signal you will find it at Baltic Honeybadger. @Hodl Hodl ⚡️

When did criticising policy make you a target of the state? Why is a secret government unit policing public opinion? What exactly is happening behind the scenes in government? A secretive government unit, empowered by the Online Safety Act, is quietly flagging and suppressing online criticism of immigration policy. It operates behind closed doors. It is unelected. It is unaccountable. And it is being used to control the narrative under the guise of safety. A front page Telegraph exposé, titled "Exposed: Labour’s plot to silence migrant hotel critics"reveals disturbing details . https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/31/exposed-labour-plot-silence-migrant-hotel-critics/ The article uncovers that a secretive Whitehall unit called NSOIT (the National Security and Online Information Team), formerly known as the Counter Disinformation Unit, has been used by Labour ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to flag and monitor social media posts that criticised migrant hotels, asylum seekers, or raised concerns about “two-tier policing.” According to internal government emails dated August 3 - 4, 2024, during the peak of the Southport riots, officials actively flagged posts with “concerning narratives,” warning that they might inflame public tensions. These posts were then forwarded to platforms like TikTok, many of them labelled as urgent, despite simply reporting factual information such as hotel locations or referring to asylum seekers as “undocumented fighting-age males”. One flagged example involved a user sharing a Freedom of Information (FOI) rejection letter regarding migrant hotel sites. Another was a video captioned “Looks like Islamabad but it’s Manchester,” flagged for fuelling racial stereotypes, yet still not unlawful under current speech laws. Although the government insists it did not request content removals, civil liberties advocates, including Big Brother Watch and the Free Speech Union, argue that this behaviour amounts to censorship of lawful dissent, carried out by unelected officials with no statutory oversight, using the infrastructure created by the Online Safety Act. This has the fingerprints of the 77th Brigade all over it, covert monitoring, narrative control, and a quiet war on the public's right to speak freely. This is not safety. It’s censorship and control.

The newly released White House Digital Assets Report represents a clear policy shift. For the first time, Bitcoin is treated as something distinct, quoted, cited, and understood on its own terms. Satoshi is referenced, the whitepaper is cited, and Bitcoin is positioned as the foundation of the digital asset ecosystem. The report outlines Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer structure, its operation without intermediaries, and its role in financial innovation. It goes further than past U.S. publications in explaining what sets Bitcoin apart from the wider crypto sector. It also mentions the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. While details remain limited, the fact that Bitcoin is being considered a strategic asset, separate from other digital assets, insicates a clear shift in policy tone. For Bitcoiners, this is progress. The framing is more deliberate. The tone is more respectful. And the message is clear: Bitcoin is being taken seriously. The groundwork is laid. What matters now is whether policymakers engage with Bitcoin on its own terms and begin treating it as a serious strategic asset. Meanwhile, in the UK, spot Bitcoin ETFs remain unavailable, and Economic Secretary Emma Reynolds has dismissed the idea of a national Bitcoin reserve: “We don’t believe that’s the right approach for our market… that’s not the path we plan to take.” They say when the U.S. acts, the rest of the world follows. Let’s hope that’s true for the UK, because Bitcoin offers the kind of hope we badly need in a dysfunctional, collapsing system. Read the report here:

The White House

Fact Sheet: The President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets Releases Recommendations to Strengthen American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology

USHERING IN THE GOLDEN AGE OF CRYPTO: When President Trump took office in January, he promised to make America the “crypto capital of the world.â...

The Bank of England and Treasury are costing UK taxpayers eye-watering sums, quietly burning through over £85 billion with £130 billion more on the way. No debate. No scrutiny. Just a stealth bailout of bad bond bets, and we’re footing the bill. The Bank of England is offloading government bonds (gilts) bought during QE instead of holding them to maturity. With gilt prices down, every sale locks in a loss. These losses will soon overtake annual debt interest payments, which are already nearing record highs.

Public sector finances, UK - Office for National Statistics

How the relationship between UK public sector monthly income and expenditure leads to changes in deficit and debt.

New Economics Foundation

Treasury to hand Bank of England ÂŁ130bn in next five years in stealth subsidy to bankers

As Chancellor looks to public spending cuts, the Treasury is set to give the Bank money that could instead be used to provide grant funding for ove...

These sales flood the market and drive yields up, raising the UK’s borrowing costs. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/bank-england-poised-slow-qt-after-rise-yields-2025-07-28/ Analysts estimate that simply letting bonds mature instead could save £10–13 billion per year.

Client Challenge

Though framed as monetary policy, the Bank’s actions have major fiscal consequences. Losses are indemnified by the Treasury, meaning taxpayers cover the bill, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.

Bond losses could force Rachel Reeves to cut spending

Payments to the Bank of England of ÂŁ130 billion to cover losses on its bond-buying scheme risk unnecessary public spending cuts or tax rises, says...

They call it monetary policy. What it looks like is economic vandalism rubber stamped in Westminster. This deserves real scrutiny. Where is Parliament? Image credit: @Dominic frisby

Trump tells Starmer to axe inheritance tax on farms. But the cracks run deeper: soaring debt, collapsing margins, rural land being sold off. Bitcoin is a practical lifeline for farmers. See my Forbes article on the Westminster farmers’ protest, where I explain how Bitcoin can build financial resilience, support rural livelihoods, and restore independence. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/11/20/bitcoin-offers-a-solution-to-the-global-farming-and-economic-crisis/

The UK is so screwed (as if we didn’t know)! They slashed capital gains allowances to boost revenue. Instead, high earners left the country. Receipts dropped by 18%. That’s a £2.7 billion shortfall! Has no one in government heard of the Laffer Curve?

Client Challenge