The BRICS bloc currently has 11 members, and several large holdings have reduced their positions in the US Treasury over the past year.
China will reduce its investment by $71.5 billion from September 2024 to September 2025, from $772 billion to $700.5 billion. According to the U.S. Treasury’s table of major foreign holders of TIC, India has reduced its holdings by $44.5 billion, Brazil by $61.9 billion and Saudi Arabia by $9.6 billion.
This move is real, measurable and concentrated on the most powerful official sector players in the block.
However, total foreign government bond holdings increased over the same period, from about $8.77 trillion to about $9.25 trillion.
According to the Ministry of Finance’s November 18 TIC statement, the overall market absorbed the selling in the civil service sector without stress, as net foreign private inflows in August and September offset net outflows of foreign civil servants.
The story isn’t so much that the world is giving up its U.S. debt, but rather that some large emerging market central banks diversify while other buyers, many of them private, step in.
The question for crypto markets is whether this marginal rebalancing, combined with movements in currencies and real yields, strengthens Bitcoin’s case as a hedge against financial instability.
The story of de-dollarization meets the reality of exchange rates
According to the IMF’s second quarter COFER data, the dollar share of allocated global foreign exchange reserves was 56.32%, down from the previous quarter.
However, the IMF’s accompanying blog, relating to the sharp decline in DXY in the first half of the year, highlights that around 92% of the decline during this period was explained by currency fluctuations.
Exchange rate effects, rather than sudden changes in central bank preferences, caused most of the headline erosion.
This difference is important when assessing how many dollars a reserve manager is actually turning over and how well that number reflects movements in mark-to-market across a basket of assets.
Gold provides a clearer signal. Thanks to diversification and hedging geopolitical risks, central bank gold demand remained at a record high in 2024, accounting for more than a fifth of global gold demand, according to the ECB’s 2025 analysis.
According to a 2025 study by the World Gold Council, many reserve managers expect their dollar holdings to decline over the next five years, and the share of gold and non-traditional currencies to increase.
Gold’s appeal as a counterparty-free reserve asset makes it a natural first destination for public decentralization.
The Bitcoin case hinges on whether the same macro uncertainties, such as fiscal trajectory, geopolitical risk, and a weak dollar, will fuel private markets’ appetite for more solid non-sovereign assets, even if the empirical link between US Treasury sales and Bitcoin flows remains shaky.
Real yield and hedging logic
Higher real yields typically tighten financial conditions, putting pressure on long-term and speculative assets, while lower real yields can provide support. The 10-year TIPS real yield serves as a macro desk barometer to assess BTC’s risk appetite and hedging narrative by indicating whether it is more attractive to own a non-yielding asset like Bitcoin versus a higher-yielding alternative.
Lower real yields could make zero-yield assets like Bitcoin cheaper to hold, making them even more attractive as a hedge against currency depreciation. Conversely, as real yields rise, the hedging logic weakens as high-yielding assets become more attractive.
While the recent rise in real yields has been consistent with the volatility of crypto risk assets, the relationship is not mechanical.
Bitcoin’s hedging story depends on whether market participants interpret rising yields as a sign of inflationary stress (often BTC-positive) or as a liquidity squeeze (usually BTC-negative). Therefore, the impact of Bitcoin as a hedge against macro risks is shaped by general market perception.
The same dynamics apply to BRICS bond sales.
If these sales reflect concerns about U.S. fiscal sustainability or currency devaluation, they further the narrative that Bitcoin is protected from fiat volatility. The impact on BTC will be weaker if it reflects routine portfolio rebalancing or the pursuit of higher yields elsewhere.
Treasury flow data alone do not allow us to distinguish between these motives. However, the broader picture of record central bank demand for gold, persistent fiscal deficits, and a gradual decline in the dollar’s share of foreign exchange reserves suggests that some of the public sector diversification is being driven by long-term hedging considerations, rather than simply tactical asset allocation.
National adoption remains a high hurdle
The private and corporate Bitcoin story has evolved faster than national-level adoption. The Chairman of the Swiss National Bank rejected Bitcoin as a reserve asset in April 2025, citing volatility and liquidity criteria.
Central banks prioritize stability, well-developed markets, and the ability to utilize foreign exchange reserves without moving prices in times of crisis.
Bitcoin still does not meet that criteria for most public sector managers, even though individual companies and allocators treat it as a macro hedge. The disconnect between the enthusiasm of individuals and the cautiousness of authorities defines the current stage of the BTC reserve debate.
Bringing the discussion full circle, while the reduction in the BRICS treasury is real, it is gradual and coexists with an increase in total foreign holdings.
The dollar’s decline, while measurable, has been gradual and driven more by exchange rate effects and gold demand than by a concerted Treasury exit. Bitcoin’s role in this rebalancing is speculative rather than structural.
Macro factors such as foreign exchange reserve diversification, fiscal risk, geopolitics, and currency uncertainty also fuel the BTC hedging story. Still, this connection remains one of narrative resonance rather than direct capital flows.
Whether this story solidifies into a durable bid will depend on how much weight private markets give to the idea that non-sovereign hard-cap assets belong in diversified portfolios at a time when fiat alternatives feel volatile.
The data shows that drift, and the market will decide whether Bitcoin captures it or not.