Anyone who deals with $BTC (-2,1 %) sooner or later comes across an argument that goes far beyond price charts and technical analysis: Game theory.
In other words, the question of how rational actors act when the outcome depends not only on their own decision - but on what everyone else does.
I believe that game theory is one of the most important and at the same time most underestimated aspects of Bitcoin. Especially in phases when prices are falling and the typical "bear market mood" has set in, it may help to take a step back and look at the big picture. Because the dynamic I want to describe to you today works regardless of whether the price falls or rises tomorrow.
In my article on Bitcoin's control loops, I described how various mechanisms within Bitcoin regulate/stabilize each other:
Today, we are talking about a control loop that does not take place within Bitcoin - but around Bitcoin:
Namely, the one between states, companies and an absolutely limited asset.
What is game theory and what does it have to do with Bitcoin?
Game theory describes how actors make decisions when the best decision depends on what others do.
The best-known example of game theory is the "prisoner's dilemma" - perhaps some of you have heard of it. But we don't need that here, because Bitcoin is about a different dynamic: a race for a limited asset.
Imagine a poker game where the chips are limited. Not the chips on the table - the chips in total. No more are ever produced. If you buy some early, you get them cheap. If you wait, you pay more. If you wait too long, you might not get any more. At least not at a price that still makes sense.
And now imagine you're sitting at this table and see others starting to buy chips. What do you do?
To understand why this question is becoming increasingly pressing for governments and companies, let's look at three game theory concepts that all point to the same result.
(1) The asymmetric risk (Minimax Regret)
Imagine you are the finance minister of a country and you see that
- Bitcoin is limited to just under 21 million units
- Other countries are becoming more visibly involved in the topic
- Institutional access is becoming easier (ETFs, custody, accounting, infrastructure)
Essentially, you have two options:
Option A:
You build up a small Bitcoin position. If Bitcoin establishes itself as a reserve asset in the long term, you were early and profit. If not, it was a manageable allocation. Not the end of the world.
Option B:
You do nothing. If Bitcoin remains irrelevant, you're right. But if Bitcoin catches on and you don't have a share while others have already accumulated, you have a problem that will become more expensive over time.
There is a term for this in decision theory: Minimax-Regret - the strategy that minimizes the maximum regret. In other words: Which decision will you regret the least in 10 years?
The regret of "We had 2% in Bitcoin, but it didn't catch on" is manageable. A small loss that nobody will mention in a few years' time.
The regret of "Bitcoin has established itself as a global reserve asset and we don't have one" is a potential disaster - a strategic disadvantage that gets worse over time because it becomes more and more expensive to get started.
No rational player who wants to minimize maximum regret can avoid a small BTC allocation. Not because they believe in Bitcoin, but because the alternative is too painful in the worst-case scenario.
And that is precisely the reason why we are already seeing the first movements in practice. In March 2025, the USA set up a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve by executive order. The Czech National Bank acquired a test portfolio with Bitcoin for the first time in November 2025 - the first central bank in Europe to do so. Brazil has submitted a bill for a state BTC reserve. Bhutan has already built up a relevant stock through state hydropower mining. None of these countries has gone "all in". But all have apparently recognized that the costs of being wrong are asymmetrical - and are acting accordingly. In my view, we are still at the very beginning.
(2) The dominant strategy (Nash equilibrium)
Minimax-regret logic describes the perspective of a single player. But what happens when we look at the game as a whole?
In game theory, there is the concept of Nash equilibrium:
A situation in which no player can improve their strategy by unilaterally doing something else. Everyone is already playing their best response to what everyone else is doing.
And this is where it gets exciting. Because "holding a small Bitcoin position" is not just a good strategy - it's at least as good as doing nothing in any scenario:
- Bitcoin catches on -> you have a position (very good) ✅
- Bitcoin remains irrelevant -> you had a manageable loss (okay) ✅
- Bitcoin prevails and you have no position -> problem ❌
There is no scenario in which "holding no Bitcoin at all" is a better choice than "holding a little Bitcoin". And this logic means that, in terms of game theory, we are moving towards an equilibrium in which all relevant players hold a position. Not because everyone suddenly becomes Bitcoiners and wants to overthrow the central banks, but because it is no longer rationally justifiable to stay out completely.
At company level, the mechanism can be described even more concretely: Imagine two competing companies. Company A holds some Bitcoin on its balance sheet, company B does not. Now the price of Bitcoin rises significantly over several years.
What happens? Company A suddenly has a capital cost advantage. The treasury reserves have grown without anything having to be done operationally. A can raise capital more cheaply and has more leeway for investments, takeovers or difficult market phases. Company B has held its cash reserves in cash or government bonds - and has thus lost purchasing power in real terms, while its competitor has been strengthened. So if the competition starts to accumulate Bitcoin - what do you do as an entrepreneur? Do you immediately go all-in? I don't think so. Or do you do nothing? I don't think so either, because that could potentially be expensive. The logical conclusion would be to also include an amount of Bitcoin on the balance sheet.
(3) The Schelling point - Why everyone agrees on Bitcoin
Now, of course, you could ask: "Okay, but why Bitcoin of all things? Why not gold, another cryptocurrency or another asset?"
This is where the third game theory concept comes into play: the Schelling point.
The idea is that when people have to coordinate without communicating with each other, they instinctively choose the solution that seems most obvious.
The classic example: "Meet me somewhere in Paris tomorrow." Without further consultation. Where are you going? The vast majority of people would go to the Eiffel Tower - not because it's objectively the "best" place, but because it's the most obvious.
And that's exactly what happens when you're looking for a neutral, scarce, digital reserve asset:
- Gold? Not digital, not verifiable in real time, difficult to divide, dependent on trusted parties
- Other cryptocurrencies? Not decentralized enough, changeable monetary policy, dependent on founding teams
- CBDCs? Ultimately also just fiat, controlled by a central bank and continuously losing value
Bitcoin is the obvious coordination pointDecentralized, neutral, absolutely limited, the largest network, the highest security, the longest track record. No founder, no CEO, no company that could be sued.
No other asset has this combination. And the more players independently come to this conclusion, the stronger Bitcoin becomes as a peg - which in turn attracts even more players. A self-reinforcing cycle.
The spot Bitcoin ETFs (since January 2024 in the US) accelerate this effect enormously because they make Bitcoin "investable" for institutions without them having to solve custody and technology themselves. BlackRock's IBIT was among the top ETFs worldwide in terms of inflows in 2025 - despite negative price performance in the same year. This shows that adoption here is not driven by euphoria, but by strategic positioning. Exactly what game theory predicts.
Why this game (almost) only goes one way
All of these concepts - minimax regret, Nash equilibrium, Schelling point - point in the same direction. But there is a fundamental reason why this game is particularly powerful with Bitcoin:
The supply is fixed.
If the price of gold rises, more gold is mined. If the demand for real estate increases, this will eventually lead to more construction. If shares rise too much, it is worthwhile for the company to issue more shares and thus dilute them.
With Bitcoin: 21 million. Not any more.
And that fundamentally changes the dynamics of the game. Because every player that accumulates Bitcoin in the long term - the state, companies, ETFs - permanently removes supply from the market. The more players join in, the scarcer the remaining supply becomes and the more expensive it becomes for latecomers to build up a relevant position at all.
The core logic:
- Early = cheaper entry, asymmetric advantage
- Late = more expensive entry, dwindling availability
- Not at all = strategic risk that grows over time
Unlike almost any other asset, Bitcoin has no mechanism to alleviate competitive pressure. Rising demand does not generate rising supply. The pressure can only be released via the price. And that is precisely what makes this game-theoretical setup so unique.
What this means for the future
I believe it is very likely that the number of countries and companies holding Bitcoin will continue to rise in the long term. Not because everyone is suddenly convinced, but because the logic of game theory makes it seem rational for fewer and fewer players to stay away completely.
Setbacks, bear markets and poor sentiment do not stop this process - at most they slow it down. And from a game-theoretical perspective, these phases are often precisely the time when the smartest players build up their positions, because entry into the game is more favorable than in hype phases.
Conclusion/TL;DR
Three game theory concepts, one result. Minimax-Regret shows that a small Bitcoin position is the strategy that minimizes the maximum regret because the cost of being wrong is extremely asymmetric.
The Nash equilibrium shows that "holding a little bitcoin" is the dominant strategy and at least as good as doing nothing in every scenario. The equilibrium moves towards general adoption.
And the Schelling point shows that when actors independently seek a neutral, scarce, digital reserve asset, they converge on Bitcoin because no other asset offers this combination of characteristics like Bitcoin.
And all of this coincides with an asset with absolutely fixed supply, which makes the competition for "early vs. late" particularly relevant, because rising demand cannot generate rising supply.
The game-theoretical logic does not depend on sentiment, not on the price and not on the news. It depends on scarcity, competition and the question of what others are doing.
For those who understand this, falling prices are not just a crisis situation, but an opportunity for lower entry prices into a game that has only just begun.
As always, I look forward to your questions and opinions in the comments.
PS: I've been meaning to do my last post on the Cypherpunks and this one for a long time. However, I'm slowly running out of post ideas. If anyone would like to know something or has a topic, please let me know😘
