The Bitcoin for America Act and the complementary BITCOIN Act (S.954) aim to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and allow tax payments in BTC, a proposal that has sparked debate over whether Congress is favoring Bitcoin above all other digital assets. However, a closer reading of the legislative text points instead to a practical framework that elevates Bitcoin while still recognizing the assets that may emerge from its own blockchain, including forks and airdrops.
How the Bills Position Bitcoin and Its Derivative Assets
Section 2 of bill S.954 introduces the idea of diversifying national assets “to include Bitcoin,” presenting it not as a replacement for traditional reserves but as a strategic complement that the U.S. government may use for long-term positioning and operational flexibility. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve would serve as the federal repository for these holdings.
The legislation also provides technical clarity by defining an airdrop as “gratuitous distribution of digital assets to holders of Bitcoin,” and a fork as the creation of “a new digital asset that shares a common transaction history with Bitcoin.” By doing so, the bill openly acknowledges that derivative assets will continue to emerge from the Bitcoin network, and does not attempt to exclude or delegitimize them.
Section 4(f) goes a step further by ordering that “all digital assets resulting from forks of the Bitcoin distributed ledger and digital assets distributed via airdrops to Bitcoin addresses” must be properly stored and accounted for within the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This requirement reflects a proactive stance toward custody, accounting, and risk management of non-BTC assets that may fall under federal control.
The bill also introduces valuation criteria that extend beyond market capitalization, incorporating “novel technological utility or strategic value to the United States” as justification for retaining or disposing of these assets. At the state level, section 8(b)(3) guarantees that any participating jurisdictions keep ownership of assets derived from forks or airdrops related to their BTC balances — a detail that reinforces local sovereignty over derivative digital property.
For custodians and asset managers, these obligations imply a more demanding operational framework, including segregated custody for forked assets, extended compliance checks, and new valuation models that consider strategic or technological significance rather than only liquidity or price.
For institutional investors, the national adoption of Bitcoin as part of the federal balance sheet may drive greater demand for secure infrastructure, certified storage, and standardized procedures, even though the legislation stops short of excluding other tokens or imposing a maximalist doctrine.
In essence, the combination of Bitcoin prioritization and formal recognition of derivative assets reveals a regulatory approach that seeks to capitalize on the strength of the Bitcoin network while leaving room for future innovation, signaling that the U.S. may be preparing for a more structured digital-asset strategy rather than a narrow, Bitcoin-only policy.