## Will US debt transform into digital securities? Analyzing strategies from a $37 trillion debt perspective

During the Eastern Economic Forum in Russia, one of the more intriguing geopolitical theories emerged. A high-ranking advisor within Russian authorities suggested that the US administration is considering leveraging the digital currency ecosystem — Bitcoin and stablecoins — as tools to gradually reduce the real value of its unprecedented fiscal obligation, which currently stands at $37 trillion. The theory points to the possibility of "migrating" this debt into a technological layer, where the burden would be distributed among global digital asset holders instead of being concentrated solely on American citizens.

Although at first glance this may sound like baseless speculation, the scenario found a supporter in the person of billionaire and MicroStrategy founder. This entrepreneur has repeatedly publicly proposed a strategy in which the US would sell all its gold reserves and exchange them for significant amounts of Bitcoin — theoretically nearly 5 million coins. The result would not only be an increase in the value of American digital assets to around $100 trillion but also a weakening of potential competitors, especially countries holding massive resources of precious metals, such as China or Russia, whose assets Putin presents as a key element of geopolitical strength.

## The debt depreciation mechanism: an old trick in a new package

To understand how such a solution would practically work, it’s worth analyzing the fundamental process that the United States has used for decades. Imagine a global asset represented by a $100 bill. If I borrow that entire amount, I commit to repaying its equivalent. However, controlling the printing press of the world’s reserve currency allows me to produce a new banknote of identical denomination instead of returning the original sum.

The consequence is inevitable: the money supply increases from $100 to $200, but the quantity of goods, real estate, and resources remains unchanged. As a result, every product doubles in price — a phenomenon commonly called inflation. When I "repay" that $100, I seemingly settle the obligation, but the actual purchasing power of the transferred sum has halved. The debt hasn't disappeared but has been diluted through currency manipulation.

This mechanism is not new. Economic history provides numerous examples: post-war income periods, the 1970s marked by rapid price increases, or pandemic times when money was printed on an unprecedented scale. For US authorities, it’s a proven method of crisis resolution.

## Stablecoins: spreading an old strategy on a global scale

Where is the breakthrough? When considering the evolution of stablecoins, it becomes clear that it’s not about changing economic principles themselves but about their globalization. Instead of directly converting $37 trillion of obligations into digital coins, the mechanism would operate through structures where stablecoins backed by US Treasury bonds become digital equivalents of promissory notes. As USDT or USDC spread globally, holders of these coins effectively support the financing of the United States’ debt.

If the administration moves toward devaluation through inflation, the losses are not limited to American citizens — they spread to all holders of stable digital currencies worldwide. Inflation becomes an unnoticed tax shared by billions of users. This strategy will gain particular importance when stablecoins become accessible on smartphones across continents, subtly embedded in everyday transactions.

Additionally, decentralization of issuance — allowing private companies, not just the government, to create stable digital currencies — conceals the political origin of the system. If firms like Apple or Meta gain the ability to issue their own digital currencies, they will be perceived as commercial innovations rather than tools of monetary policy. This fundamentally differs from central bank digital currencies (CBDC), which carry governmental authority from the outset.

## Fundamental weakness: the trust problem that doesn’t go away

However, this scenario faces a significant obstacle. Other countries do not accept this narrative. We observe this in the behavior of central banks worldwide, which systematically increase their reserves of precious metals as strategic buffers of independence.

Theoretically, stablecoins guarantee a 1:1 relationship with the dollar or US Treasury bonds, meaning each coin is backed by an equivalent amount of assets. In practice, however — neither private entities nor foreign governments can fully independently verify the reliability of these reserves. Audit reports published by issuers like Tether or Circle come from auditing firms that often operate within the US financial system.

With trust levels concerning trillions of dollars, this is an insurmountable barrier for international relations. History provides a cautionary precedent: when Nixon’s administration unilaterally ended dollar convertibility into gold in 1971, the world experienced a complete "breakdown of rules." The promise remained, but its fulfillment ended abruptly and without warning.

From this perspective, a digital token system based on "trust us" faces natural global resistance. Nothing guarantees that the US will not, in the future, make decisions regarding stable digital currencies similar to what it did with gold. This is precisely why there is widespread caution toward new digital monetary systems.

## Will it really happen? The non-public path

Considering available evidence and developmental trajectories, it seems that not only does such a possibility exist, but that the US is already experimenting with its elements, albeit not in an openly declared form.

Michael Saylor has actively advised policymakers to establish strategic Bitcoin reserves. His vision involved selling gold reserves and massively accumulating Bitcoin, which would not only diminish the prestige and value of competitors’ assets but also transform the US asset portfolio. However, in practice — even under the previous administration — the idea remained theoretical — no public actions in this direction have been taken.

But that doesn’t mean the narrative is over. The government doesn’t have to act directly to participate in the process. The real "backdoor" mechanism is carried out through the corporate sector. MicroStrategy has effectively become a "public company with Bitcoin," and under its founder’s leadership, it continuously accumulates digital assets, now totaling hundreds of thousands of coins.

The question then arises: is this safer and more discreet than direct purchases by government institutions? Such actions wouldn’t be perceived as central bank operations nor trigger international market panic. When Bitcoin gains official status as a strategic asset, the government could gain exposure through equity stakes or corporate acquisitions — just as it historically held stakes in tech companies.

Instead of publicly liquidating precious metals or pushing for control over digital stablecoin systems, a more subtle and traditionally American approach is to enable the private sector to experiment. When the model proves undeniably effective, the state can take it over and institutionalize it — with the ability to deny its involvement until the very last moment.

In summary: the trajectory indicates that it’s not a question of if, but when the United States will seek a fundamental solution to its debt problem; some variant of a digital asset-based strategy will be practically unavoidable. The Russian advisor’s observation, although framed from a competitive perspective, contains a significant degree of economic realism.