In March 2025, through a presidential executive order dated 6 March 2025, the United States established the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This move is not merely a geopolitical signal — it raises concrete legal questions for every regulatory framework governing crypto-assets, including MiCA (The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) in the EU and the Digital Assets Act in Serbia. This text is informational in nature and does not replace individual legal advice.
What the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Is and How It Came About
The BITCOIN Act (Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness through Optimized Investment Nationally Act) had been circulating in the U.S. Congress since 2024 as a legislative initiative, but as of the publication date of this article it had not been enacted into law. In parallel, the executive branch acted through a presidential order directing the Department of the Treasury to retain Bitcoin seized in criminal and civil proceedings as a strategic reserve, rather than selling it at auction.
The legal mechanism is specific: this does not involve the purchase of Bitcoin using budgetary funds (which would require congressional authorisation), but rather the reclassification of BTC already in government possession. This is a material distinction for analysing the applicability of such a measure to other jurisdictions.
Legal Mechanisms for State Ownership or Holding of Bitcoin
Any state considering a similar measure may draw on three models:
Model 1 — Retention of seized BTC (U.S. model): Minimal legislative changes are required, but the scope is limited — the reserve is tied to criminal-law seizures.
Model 2 — Direct purchase (El Salvador model): The Bitcoin Legal Tender Act (2021) preceded direct purchases. The IMF (International Monetary Fund) required amendments as a condition for a credit facility; El Salvador revised the law in early 2025 (BTC is no longer mandatory legal tender).
Model 3 — Sovereign fund/ETF structure (discussed in the UAE; rejected by Norway): Indirect exposure through regulated instruments, without the state holding private keys directly.
Impact on the EU and the MiCA Regulation
MiCA does not directly regulate the activities of central banks and public authorities — Article 2(2) excludes from its scope the European Central Bank, the central banks of Member States when acting as monetary authorities, and related institutions.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve has an indirect impact on the EU through two channels:
Channel 1 — Market signal and BTC price: The legitimisation of BTC by the United States increases pressure on EU institutions to reconsider the treatment of BTC under prudential rules applicable to banks (CRR/CRD — Capital Requirements Regulation/Capital Requirements Directive) and insurance undertakings (Solvency II), where crypto-assets are currently subject to a 1,250% capital requirement.
Channel 2 — Diplomatic pressure on EBA guidelines: The European Banking Authority (EBA) published an opinion in 2023 on the prudential treatment of crypto-asset exposures. The U.S. move may accelerate the revision of those guidelines toward a differentiated treatment of BTC as a “digital commodity” as opposed to altcoins.
Implications for Serbia and the NBS
Serbia is an EU candidate country and operates on the principle of harmonisation. The National Bank of Serbia (NBS) has not issued an official position on strategic reserves in BTC. The Digital Assets Act of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of the RS”, No. 153/2020) does not provide a mechanism for state ownership of digital assets outside of criminal-law seizures.
Several elements are nonetheless relevant to Serbian business entities and investors:
- Tax classification: The NBS and the Ministry of Finance (MF) treat BTC as an asset, not a currency — capital gains are taxed at applicable rates. The U.S. change in status reclassification may create pressure for a similar policy dialogue in Serbia.
- Banking access for crypto companies: Serbian banks have so far been cautious about opening accounts for digital asset service providers (DASP). The legitimisation of BTC by the United States and forthcoming EU banking standards may ease these barriers.
Comparative Legal Analysis: El Salvador and the UAE
El Salvador was the first country to declare BTC legal tender. IMF pressure led to a revision in January 2025 — BTC is no longer mandatory, but remains lawful. This precedent demonstrates that geopolitical and credit factors can rapidly alter the regulatory course.
The UAE (Abu Dhabi and Dubai) permit crypto activities through free economic zones — the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), and the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) — each operating under dedicated licences. BTC is treated as an asset, not a currency; there are no indications of a state reserve, but the regulatory framework is explicitly more accommodating than EU standards.
Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A)
Has the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve been enacted by Congress? As of the publication date of this article, the direct purchase of BTC through congressional legislation had not been adopted — the initiative was implemented through a presidential executive order providing for the retention of already-seized BTC.
Do the EU or Serbia have plans for a Bitcoin reserve? There are no official plans or statements regarding strategic Bitcoin reserves in the EU or Serbia as of the publication date of this article.
How does the U.S. move affect my crypto portfolio in Serbia? There is no direct legal impact. The U.S. legitimisation of BTC may affect market price and the positions of regulators, but the tax treatment of capital gains in Serbia remains unchanged.
What does the central bank exemption under MiCA mean? EU central banks are not required to comply with MiCA when carrying out public-law functions, including the management of foreign exchange reserves.
Conclusion
The U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve is more of a political and market signal than a directly applicable legal instrument for Serbia and the EU. However, signals of this magnitude reshape the regulatory landscape — faster than legislators can adapt. If you have questions about the exposure of your business or investments to these developments, a professional legal analysis before taking any step is a worthwhile investment.
Sources: – Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA), Article 2 – EBA Opinion on prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures (2023) – Executive Order on the Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (6 March 2025) – Zakon o digitalnoj imovini RS (“Sl. glasnik RS” br. 153/2020)
