Swedish Parliament Proposes National Bitcoin Reserve Strategy

The proposal calls for the government to explore how a strategic Bitcoin reserve might be structured and which public authority (such as Riksbanken) could oversee it. In addition, it suggests that seized Bitcoin be transferred to national reserves rather than sold, to avoid burdening the budget. The proposers contend that Sweden’s traditional holdings, mainly foreign currency and gold, are exposed to external monetary and geopolitical risks. They further frame Bitcoin as an asset that is widely traded internationally and operates independently of any single national government.

To prevent the creation of new costs for taxpayers, the motion recommends a budget-neutral approach. Instead of auctioning off seized or confiscated Bitcoins, Swedish law enforcement could transfer such holdings to a centralized reserve account. This would allow the government to accumulate a Bitcoin reserve organically without relying on direct purchases.

International context adds weight to the Swedish proposal. Several governments have started to view Bitcoin not just through a regulatory lens but as a potential strategic reserve asset. In the United States, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that created both a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a “Digital Asset Stockpile” for other cryptocurrencies. The directive required federal agencies to retain, rather than liquidate, Bitcoin seized in enforcement actions, effectively turning it into a long-term component of the national portfolio.

This shift has made the United States one of the largest state holders of Bitcoin, with an estimated 198,000 BTC under government control. Alongside this development, the GENIUS Act, passed in mid-2025, introduced a federal framework for stablecoins and clarified how digital assets should be integrated into existing financial law. Together, these measures underscore a broader policy trend: digital assets are being positioned not only as regulated instruments but also as elements of national economic strategy.

Other European states have also engaged in similar activity. The United Kingdom, Finland, and Germany have accumulated Bitcoin through seizures, while politicians in Poland and Latvia have raised discussions on whether their countries should pursue strategic crypto reserves. Sweden’s proposal therefore aligns with a wider international trend, though it would be one of the first to formalize such a policy explicitly.

Proponents of the Swedish motion highlight several advantages. They argue that Bitcoin could diversify national reserves, as it operates independently of any single monetary authority. Supporters also compare it to digital gold, presenting it as a potential hedge against inflation and the devaluation of fiat currencies. In addition, because Bitcoin markets operate continuously across borders, it offers liquidity and accessibility that is not limited by banking hours or jurisdictional boundaries. Finally, adopting such a strategy would signal that Sweden is aligning itself with innovation and technological modernization, potentially strengthening its reputation as a leader in digital finance.

Yet concerns remain. Analysts note that Bitcoin’s volatility makes it a questionable store of value for sovereign reserves. Some caution that if a government were to accumulate large holdings and later liquidate them, it could destabilize markets and depress global prices. Others also argue that state involvement in Bitcoin accumulation may contradict the original decentralized ethos of the technology, raising questions about whether government custody undermines its neutrality.

Beyond ideology, practical challenges pose further obstacles. Issues such as key management, custody, auditing, and political oversight remain unresolved. To address these, governments would need to implement robust cybersecurity protections, establish independent audit mechanisms, and design legal frameworks capable of preventing interference or misuse. Without such safeguards, the risks of mismanagement or exploitation of sovereign Bitcoin holdings remain high.

The proposal has been flagged in parliamentary discussion, with indications from supporters that a committee motion may be introduced in the coming autumn. Some political observers expect that if it is formally referred, the Finance Committee would likely seek input from institutions such as Riksbanken and the Ministry of Finance. Key issues expected to surface include Bitcoin’s price volatility, its compatibility with Sweden’s constitutional and financial frameworks, and governance safeguards. Whether the idea will win majority backing remains uncertain.

If Sweden proceeds, it would become one of the first nations to adopt a formal Bitcoin reserve, placing it alongside the United States as a state actively integrating cryptocurrency into its long-term fiscal planning. Such a step could encourage other governments to explore the role of digital assets in their own reserves, potentially accelerating regulatory clarity and prompting the creation of secure custody infrastructure. At the same time, it could reshape the global conversation on how sovereign states interact with decentralized technologies that were originally designed to operate outside traditional institutions.

The proposal ultimately reflects the tension between innovation and caution. For supporters, it is an opportunity to strengthen Sweden’s financial independence and align with global trends in digital asset adoption. For critics, it raises new risks and questions about volatility, governance, and the boundaries between decentralized technology and state power. The outcome of the Finance Committee’s review later this month will indicate whether Sweden is prepared to move from discussion to action on a national Bitcoin strategy.