Bitcoin unlikely to see a dramatic shift: Jamie Elkaleh, Bitget Wallet

• Bitcoin consolidates under $110,000 on Monday, down 3% on the day.
• Jamie Elkaleh, CMO of Bitget Wallet discussed Bitcoin's strategic accumulation by nation states with FXStreet.
• Elkaleh predicts pilot initiatives for Bitcoin adoption and national reserve in 2026.

In an exclusive interview with FXStreet, Jamie Elkaleh discussed Bitcoin as a reserve asset, the four-year Bitcoin market cycle and the United States' Bitcoin reserve plans.

What are your thoughts on custody of Bitcoin for nation states' treasury?

When a country decides to hold Bitcoin in its treasury, the first question really isn’t “should we?” but “how can we do this properly?” Because, unlike a retail investor or even most institutions, a sovereign must think in terms of geopolitics, accountability, and multi-layered risk.

From a practical perspective, the models we’re seeing are telling: states are combining cold-storage, multi-sig (multiple keys/locations), trusted third-party custodians, and clear audit/oversight frameworks. For example, global custody providers are already presenting “sovereign-grade” solutions that mix on-chain security with institutional controls.

As for the regulatory approach, a nation needs to integrate Bitcoin custody into the existing financial and oversight architecture. In the UK, we’ve seen a relatively permissive but structured supervisory approach; in the U.S., bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have recently emphasised that crypto custody remains subject to “traditional-standard” frameworks. So it’s not only about the technology of securing keys. It’s about operationalising governance, transparency, auditability, AML/KYC alignment, and long-term institutional integrity.

In short, custody for a nation-state Bitcoin holding isn’t just about locking down keys, it’s about designing a governance model. We’ve seen firsthand that institutional users demand both the cryptographic assurances (private keys, distributed signing) and the transparency, auditability, and regulatory comfort that tie to board-level, sovereign-level accountability.

Will Bitcoin holding by nations make a difference to the retail trader in the long term? Does this mean the four-year cycle is no longer relevant?

Perhaps in a subtler way than many expect. When governments begin accumulating Bitcoin, it sends a signal that this isn’t just speculative tech, and it’s being treated as an infrastructure asset, as reserve thinking. That matters to retail traders because the market dynamics begin to shift: deeper liquidity, larger players (sovereigns + institutions) alongside retail, and potentially different risk-return profiles. Studies show this transitional demand moving from “retail-driven speculation” to “strategic accumulation”.

But does that mean the classic four-year halving cycle goes out the window? Not at all. The four-year cycle, tied to issuance halving events, miner economics, and market sentiment, still has relevance because the network fundamentals haven’t changed. What might change is the amplitude of the peaks and troughs: with sovereign demand entering the mix, you may see fewer extreme swings and more steady accumulation phases. In other words, retail traders shouldn’t throw out their cycle models, but they might need to adjust expectations.

From a practical retail vs. institutional standpoint, for the retail trader, the benefit could be greater stability, better infrastructure, and more credible regulatory frameworks. All of these reduce some of the “wild west” element of crypto. But the flip side is that when large actors (including states) move, retail may feel effects after the fact, thus maintaining strong fundamentals (risk management, quality assets, understanding regulatory context) remains crucial.

The US has yet to make strides in its Bitcoin reserve plan, any thoughts on that? Do you expect more developments in 2026?

The U.S. case is interesting precisely because of its scale and regulatory complexity. On one hand, the federal approach is still cautious: much infrastructure (custody law, valuation frameworks, inter-agency coordination) needs ironing out before large-scale Bitcoin reserve moves. On the other hand, the move isn’t off the table. The White House issued an Executive Order on March 6, 2025, to establish a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” and “U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile”.

My expectation is: we’re unlikely to see a dramatic shift, such as a large upfront Bitcoin purchase in 2026. But we might see pilot initiatives, state-level experiments, or institutional channels tied to government entities that come up with the reserve narrative. By 2026, if other major jurisdictions (UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, APAC states) are moving ahead with clearer frameworks, the U.S. may feel increased pressure to respond in kind, not necessarily because of ideology, but strategic finance.

From a compliance and operational angle, the US’s path will hinge on how it resolves custody definitions, asset-valuation and audit frameworks, cross-jurisdictional AML/regulatory alignment, and how it frames Bitcoin’s role in a reserve context (hedge, diversification, strategic asset?). For the broader market and the retail/institutional crossover, any U.S. movement would likely boost confidence, accelerate regulatory clarity, and help integrate crypto infrastructure further into mainstream finance.