In This Article
- "Bitcoin can coexist with institutions and states, but it cannot afford to become governed by them."
- "In a world where energy and finance are increasingly politicised, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a strategic intersection of both"
- How is "hashpower" emerging as a proxy for geopolitical influence?
- "If mining and reserve accumulation are pursued as geopolitical strategies, Bitcoin’s neutrality comes under pressure"
- About MEXC
In an exclusive chat with 99Bitcoins.com, MEXC Chief Operating Officer Vugar Usi Zade spoke about Bitcoin mining, the risks of its politicisation, and state-controlled Bitcoin reserves.
“The growing politicisation of Bitcoin mining and the emergence of state-controlled Bitcoin reserves carry risks that go well beyond market volatility. They go to the heart of what Bitcoin was designed to be,” he said.
“Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision was explicitly peer-to-peer: a monetary system that removed intermediaries, reduced reliance on trusted authorities and allowed value to move without permission. That principle remains Bitcoin’s core strength. Yet as the industry celebrates institutional inflows, legislative recognition and sovereign adoption, there is a parallel danger that Bitcoin drifts toward the very structures it was built to circumvent.”
“State-subsidised mining risks concentrating hashpower within a small number of jurisdictions, weakening decentralisation and introducing political influence into a system meant to be neutral. Once mining becomes an instrument of national policy, it is inevitably shaped by political priorities rather than network health. The same risk applies to strategic Bitcoin reserves. If governments begin treating Bitcoin like oil or foreign exchange, deploying it tactically, freezing it, or threatening its use in diplomatic disputes, the asset risks becoming entangled in sanctions regimes and geopolitical bargaining.”
Explore: 99Bitcoins’ Q4 2025 State of Crypto Market Report
“Bitcoin can coexist with institutions and states, but it cannot afford to become governed by them.”
“There is also a subtler concentration risk emerging from the private sector. Large corporates and balance-sheet-driven accumulators, while often praised for validating Bitcoin as an asset class, can similarly distort market dynamics if supply becomes increasingly locked in the hands of a few dominant players. Whether concentration occurs through state treasuries or corporate balance sheets, the effect is the same: reduced circulation and greater systemic influence for a narrow group of actors.”
“None of this negates Bitcoin’s utility or resilience. Mining can stabilise grids and monetise excess energy, and institutional participation brings liquidity and legitimacy.”
But if Bitcoin’s future becomes defined primarily by sovereign reserves and large custodians, the network risks losing its most important property: being open, permissionless and peer-to-peer.
“The long-term challenge for the industry is therefore balance. Bitcoin can coexist with institutions and states, but it cannot afford to become governed by them. Preserving decentralisation, not just in code, but in ownership, mining and usage, remains essential if Bitcoin is to fulfil its original purpose rather than evolve into a politicised financial instrument under a different name.”
Read More: 99Bitcoins Interview: CSO of MEXC on Alt Season & Tokenization Trends
“In a world where energy and finance are increasingly politicised, Bitcoin mining has emerged as a strategic intersection of both”
Bitcoin mining is being drawn into national energy policy for one simple reason: it has become a tool for converting surplus energy into strategic value.
“At its core, Bitcoin mining is an unusually flexible form of demand. It can absorb excess electricity instantly, shut down when grids are stressed, and monetise energy that would otherwise be wasted, whether flared gas, curtailed renewables, or underutilised baseload power. For governments grappling with volatile energy systems and rising investment in renewables, mining offers a way to stabilise grids while turning stranded kilowatt-hours into a globally liquid asset. That makes it economically attractive and increasingly difficult for policymakers to ignore.”
“The second shift is geopolitical. As energy markets and financial rails are weaponised through sanctions and reserve freezes, states are looking for ways to translate energy abundance into monetary resilience. Supporting domestic Bitcoin mining allows countries to convert energy dominance into hashpower and, ultimately, into Bitcoin itself. In that sense, mining is no longer just an industrial activity; it is becoming a bridge between energy security and monetary strategy.”
“Bitcoin remains a neutral protocol. But in a world where energy and finance are increasingly politicised, mining has emerged as a strategic intersection of both. That is why governments are beginning to treat it not as a regulatory afterthought, but as an extension of national energy policy.”
How is “hashpower” emerging as a proxy for geopolitical influence?
“Hashpower is emerging as a proxy for geopolitical influence because it sits at the intersection of energy, security and monetary credibility.”
“As discussed earlier, Bitcoin mining has become an extension of national energy strategy: states are increasingly using surplus or strategically important energy resources to generate hashpower. Control over hashpower translates into influence over the infrastructure that secures the world’s most neutral and censorship-resistant monetary network. While Bitcoin’s design makes a sustained “51 per cent attack” economically and politically prohibitive, relative concentration still matters. Countries with large shares of global hashrate gain soft power, not by rewriting the ledger, but by shaping norms, resilience, and market confidence.”
“The United States currently leads in hashrate, reflecting its capital depth, technological capacity, and access to energy. However, that dominance is not guaranteed. High electricity costs, grid volatility and geographic concentration, particularly in Texas, creates structural constraints. By contrast, countries such as China and Russia retain significant latent advantages through surplus energy, state coordination and the ability to deploy mining capacity as part of broader industrial policy. The contest is therefore less about overt control and more about preventing any single jurisdiction from becoming structurally dominant.”
Ultimately, hashpower functions as a new form of monetary soft power. Nations that succeed in anchoring significant portions of the network will not only influence where and how Bitcoin is secured, but also help define the standards, regulatory assumptions and energy models that shape the industry for decades.
“In a world where finance and energy are increasingly weaponised, hashpower has become a quiet but consequential measure of geopolitical relevance.”
“If mining and reserve accumulation are pursued as geopolitical strategies, Bitcoin’s neutrality comes under pressure”
The shift cuts both ways, and that tension will define Bitcoin’s next decade.
The broadening of participation, from individual investors to corporations, hedge funds, and governments, has undeniably strengthened Bitcoin’s security and credibility. It is no longer treated as a transient speculative asset whose “bubble will burst”, but increasingly as digital gold: a scarce, durable store of value now taken seriously alongside gold, oil and other strategic reserves. In that sense, growing adoption is an implicit vote of confidence in Bitcoin’s robustness and long-term relevance.
However, the manner of that adoption matters. There is a meaningful distinction between governments integrating Bitcoin into the real economy, by recognising it as legal tender or enabling its use as a payment rail, and states or large actors simply accumulating it as a strategic reserve. The former embeds Bitcoin into everyday economic life; the latter risks turning it into an instrument of leverage.
If mining and reserve accumulation are pursued as geopolitical strategies, Bitcoin’s neutrality comes under pressure. Like oil or rare earth metals, it could be used to signal strength, exert influence, or even distort markets through coordinated action. That would mark a departure from the decentralised ethos that made Bitcoin universally accessible regardless of nationality, wealth or political alignment. Over time, such a shift risks reputational damage, altering global perceptions of Bitcoin from an independent monetary asset to one entangled in power politics.
Bitcoin’s design is resilient, but its social layer is not immune to how it is used. Whether this phase ultimately strengthens the network or weaponises it will depend less on code and more on intent.
The challenge ahead is ensuring that growing institutional and sovereign participation reinforces Bitcoin’s role as a neutral, global store of value rather than redefining it as just another strategic asset in an increasingly fragmented world.
About MEXC
Founded in 2018, MEXC expanded its user base to more than 40 million users across 170+ markets. The platform consistently ranks among the world’s most liquid and fastest-growing exchanges.
Why you can trust 99Bitcoins
Established in 2013, 99Bitcoin’s team members have been crypto experts since Bitcoin’s Early days.
Weekly Research
100k+Monthly readers
Expert contributors
2000+Crypto Projects Reviewed
