The IMF’s updated BPM7 manual acknowledges the rise of digital assets like Bitcoin but does not explicitly classify Bitcoin as “digital gold.”
While Bitcoin acceptance and adoption continue to grow, the IMF remains cautious, stating concerns over volatility and regulatory challenges rather than endorsing it as a store of value comparable to gold.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has officially classified Bitcoin as “digital gold” in its updated Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7).
These claims have spread extensively across social media, where cryptocurrency enthusiasts and influencers have interpreted this as a milestone moment for the acceptance of Bitcoin by the global financial system.
Some argue that this implies the IMF is now treating Bitcoin similarly to traditional assets such as gold and real estate.
IMF’s Official Stance on Bitcoin
Despite the hype, a careful examination of the IMF’s BPM7 does not reveal any explicit designation of Bitcoin as “digital gold.”
The IMF’s BPM7 does reference the rise of digital assets and their increasing role in the financial landscape, but not as “digital gold.” According to the manual, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are categorized as “non-produced, non-financial assets.”
However, people advise against confusing this acknowledgment with an endorsement or classification of Bitcoin as being equivalent to gold. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Act Fund, disagreed with the narrative that the IMF has endorsed Bitcoin as a store of value comparable to gold. He suggested that the interpretation came from a misunderstanding of the IMF’s wording around crypto assets.
The IMF has traditionally taken a cautious view of cryptocurrencies. The caution is seen in its recent deal with El Salvador, where it granted the country a $1.4 billion loan on the condition that it rolled back its Bitcoin plans.
The deal has requirements to make acceptance of Bitcoin voluntary for companies and cap public sector engagement, illustrating the IMF’s concerns over the volatility and regulatory risks of cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin’s Role as a Store of Value
The controversy over Bitcoin’s “digital gold” status is whether it can be a store of value. Its proponents argue that Bitcoin’s scarcity and decentralized nature are the same characteristics that make gold an old safe-haven asset.
Michael J. Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy and a high-profile Bitcoin advocate, has repeatedly argued that Bitcoin will eventually replace gold as the preferred store of value. Saylor has described Bitcoin as “the apex property of the human race” due to its scarcity and resistance to government interference.
However, skeptics point to Bitcoin’s price volatility and its tendency to move in correlation with high-risk assets, such as technology stocks, rather than displaying the stability traditionally associated with gold. Such volaThe IMF’s updated BPM7 manual acknowledges the rise of digital assets like Bitcoin but does not explicitly classify Bitcoin as “digital gold.”
While Bitcoin acceptance and adoption continue to grow, the IMF remains cautious, stating concerns over volatility and regulatory challenges rather than endorsing it as a store of value comparable to gold.
Reports have surfaced suggesting that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has officially classified Bitcoin as “digital gold” in its updated Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7).
These claims have spread extensively across social media, where cryptocurrency enthusiasts and influencers have interpreted this as a milestone moment for the acceptance of Bitcoin by the global financial system.
Some argue that this implies the IMF is now treating Bitcoin similarly to traditional assets such as gold and real estate.
IMF’s Official Stance on Bitcoin
Despite the hype, a careful examination of the IMF’s BPM7 does not reveal any explicit designation of Bitcoin as “digital gold.”
The IMF’s BPM7 does reference the rise of digital assets and their increasing role in the financial landscape, but not as “digital gold.” According to the manual, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are categorized as “non-produced, non-financial assets.”
However, people advise against confusing this acknowledgment with an endorsement or classification of Bitcoin as being equivalent to gold. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Satoshi Act Fund, disagreed with the narrative that the IMF has endorsed Bitcoin as a store of value comparable to gold. He suggested that the interpretation came from a misunderstanding of the IMF’s wording around crypto assets.
The IMF has traditionally taken a cautious view of cryptocurrencies. The caution is seen in its recent deal with El Salvador, where it granted the country a $1.4 billion loan on the condition that it rolled back its Bitcoin plans.
The deal has requirements to make acceptance of Bitcoin voluntary for companies and cap public sector engagement, illustrating the IMF’s concerns over the volatility and regulatory risks of cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin’s Role as a Store of Value
The controversy over Bitcoin’s “digital gold” status is whether it can be a store of value. Its proponents argue that Bitcoin’s scarcity and decentralized nature are the same characteristics that make gold an old safe-haven asset.
Michael J. Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy and a high-profile Bitcoin advocate, has repeatedly argued that Bitcoin will eventually replace gold as the preferred store of value. Saylor has described Bitcoin as “the apex property of the human race” due to its scarcity and resistance to government interference.
However, skeptics point to Bitcoin’s price volatility and its tendency to move in correlation with high-risk assets, such as technology stocks, rather than displaying the stability traditionally associated with gold. Such vola
