In the high-stakes world of central banking, Switzerland has long been associated with monetary orthodoxy, combining substantial gold holdings with a disciplined, stability-focused policy framework. Yet a recent effort sought to bring the 21st century’s so-called “digital gold” inside the Swiss National Bank’s (SNB) fortress.
The “Bitcoin Initiative,” a campaign to amend the Swiss Federal Constitution to require the SNB to hold Bitcoin (BTC) alongside its gold and foreign currency reserves, came to an end this month after failing to secure the 100,000 signatures needed to trigger a national referendum. Organizers ultimately gathered only about half that number, leaving the proposal to lapse without reaching the ballot.
Although the initiative never reached Swiss voters, its rise and fall offers a revealing window into the growing tension between traditional reserve management and the emerging role of digital assets.
The Goal: Amending Article 99
The core of the proposal was simple but consequential. Under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, citizens may propose amendments to the Federal Constitution by gathering 100,000 valid signatures within an 18‑month period
The Bitcoin Initiative targeted Article 99, Paragraph 3, which governs the SNB’s reserve policy. The provision currently states: “The Swiss National Bank shall create sufficient currency reserves from its revenues; part of these reserves shall be held in gold.”
Campaigners proposed a minimalist but symbolically significant change — adding three words to the end of the sentence: “and in Bitcoin.” The amendment did not prescribe any minimum allocation. Instead, it would have required the SNB to recognize Bitcoin as an additional reserve asset, leaving the scale and implementation to the central bank’s discretion.
Why It Failed: The 50,000 Signature Gap
Despite Switzerland’s reputation as a global crypto hub, anchored by Zug’s “Crypto Valley,” the initiative struggled to build support beyond the core digital asset community. By the time organizers allowed the campaign to lapse in early May 2026, they had collected only about 50,000 signatures, roughly half of the threshold required to trigger a national referendum.
Several factors appear to have contributed to this shortfall.
Technical complexity was the first factor. Campaign founder Yves Bennaïm acknowledged that, from the outset, the effort was a “long shot.” Translating a proposal about central bank reserve composition into a message capable of mobilizing broad public support proved difficult, particularly within the constraints of a signature campaign.
Second, there was institutional resistance. The SNB maintained its longstanding opposition to holding cryptocurrencies in its reserves. SNB Chairman Martin Schlegel and other officials repeatedly emphasized that Bitcoin’s volatility and liquidity profile are incompatible with the central bank’s reserve management requirements and its mandate to preserve monetary stability.
A third factor was limited campaign infrastructure. As a largely grassroots effort, the initiative lacked the institutional backing and financial resources that typically underpin successful nationwide signature drives in Switzerland — an important practical constraint in a system that depends on sustained, large-scale voter mobilization.
The Pro‑Bitcoin Argument: Neutrality and Diversification
Supporters of the initiative framed Bitcoin as a strategic hedge within Switzerland’s reserve framework. Today, roughly three‑quarters of the SNB’s foreign currency reserves are concentrated in U.S. dollar‑ and euro‑denominated assets, a structure that reflects global financial realities but also exposes the balance sheet to fluctuations in a small number of major currencies.
Against that backdrop, campaigners argued that Bitcoin could serve as a diversifying asset. Because it operates on a decentralized network and is not issued by any sovereign, proponents described it as a “politically neutral” alternative (like Switzerland), one that could reduce dependence on the monetary policy decisions and geopolitical dynamics tied to the world’s dominant reserve currencies.
More broadly, supporters cast Bitcoin as a modern analogue to gold — a finite, non-sovereign asset that exists outside the control of any single government. In that framing, even a modest allocation could function as a hedge, less against day‑to‑day volatility than against longer-term risks to fiat currency regimes and the concentration of global reserves in a handful of jurisdictions.
The SNB’s Counterargument: Stability, Liquidity, and Institutional Mandate
If the proponents’ case rested on neutrality and diversification, the SNB’s response was grounded in the orthodoxy of the traditional criteria governing central bank reserve management. At the core of the SNB’s position is the straightforward proposition that reserve assets must be safe, liquid, and reliable stores of value. On each of these dimensions, the Bank concluded that Bitcoin fell short.
On the issue of volatility, Chairman Schlegel emphasized that Bitcoin’s price fluctuations are incompatible with the Bank’s mandate to preserve the real value of its reserves. Cryptocurrencies, he noted, exhibit “very, very high” volatility, an attribute that undermines their usefulness as a stabilizing component of a national balance sheet.
Just as critical is the question of liquidity. Central banks must be able to deploy reserves at scale, often on short notice, to intervene in foreign exchange markets or respond to financial stress. In the SNB’s view, crypto markets, despite their growth, do not yet offer the depth required to execute large transactions without significant price impact.
The SNB has also pointed to structural risks inherent in digital assets. Because Bitcoin is a software-based system, it carries potential vulnerabilities, such as technical flaws and security breaches, that are fundamentally different from those associated with traditional reserve assets such as sovereign bonds or gold.
Taken together, these objections reflect more than skepticism about a single asset class. They illustrate a deeper institutional view: central bank reserves are not investment portfolios designed to maximize return or hedge against tail risks. They are instruments of monetary policy, designed to function predictably in moments of stress. In that context, Bitcoin’s defining features—its volatility, independence, and market structure—were not seen as advantages, but, rather, as disqualifying characteristics.
Looking Ahead: A Failure or a First Step?
The Bitcoin Initiative will not appear on a Swiss ballot, at least not in its current form. But its failure at the signature stage has not ended the conversation. For its organizers, the campaign served a different purpose: placing the question of Bitcoin’s role in sovereign reserve management squarely into the public and institutional debate.
That debate is unlikely to dissipate. Across jurisdictions, policymakers and market participants continue to explore whether—and in what form—digital assets might play a role in national balance sheets. The United States government holds Bitcoin via seizures, though not part of its national reserve. El Salvador accumulated Bitcoin as part of its national reserve strategy. In November 2025, the Czech Republic purchased about $1 million in Bitcoin in a test portfolio, but not for its official national reserves. On the other side, it has been reported that European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has stated that she is confident that Bitcoin will not enter the reserves of any of the central banks of the General Council of the ECB.
While no major central bank has embraced Bitcoin as a reserve asset, the underlying questions driving the Swiss initiative—currency concentration, geopolitical risk, and the search for non-sovereign stores of value—remain live issues. For now, the SNB’s position is clear. Its reserves will continue to be composed of gold and foreign currency assets governed by traditional principles of safety, liquidity, and stability.
