The US Central Intelligence Agency is increasingly incorporating Bitcoin (BTC) as a tool in its operations, and working with the cryptocurrency is a matter of national security, Michael Ellis, the agency’s deputy director, told podcast host Anthony Pompliano.
In an appearance on the market analyst and investor’s show, Ellis told Pompliano that the intelligence agency works with law enforcement to track BTC, and it is a point of data collection in counter-intelligence operations. Ellis added:
“Bitcoin is here to stay — cryptocurrency is here to stay. As you know, more and more institutions are adopting it, and I think that is a great trend. One that this administration has obviously been leaning forward into.”
“It’s another area of competition where we need to ensure the United States is well-positioned against China and other adversaries,” Ellis said.
Although Ellis’s comments point to Bitcoin maturing as an asset, they also reflect the increased involvement of governments and institutions in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. This increased involvement runs contrary to the libertarian and cypherpunk ethos originally inherent in crypto.
Related: Geopolitical tensions fuel central bank shift toward gold, crypto — BlackRock exec
Bitcoin: from cypherpunk experiment to state reserve asset
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve on March 7, to mixed reactions from the Bitcoin community.
Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey celebrated the move, while Venice AI founder and BTC advocate Erik Vorhees warned against the government owning any Bitcoin but added that if the US government is to adopt any crypto reserve, it should be Bitcoin-only.
Concerns that cryptocurrencies have lost their cypherpunk roots predate the current market cycle and any strategic reserve legislation or comprehensive regulatory frameworks for digital assets.
In March 2020, Therese Chambers, the former director of retail and regulatory investigations at the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), argued that cryptocurrencies had become increasingly financialized and institutionalized.
Chambers added that digital assets were behaving far more like traditional financial instruments than the privacy-preserving tools they were initially billed as.
