Taiwan lawmaker Ge Ru-jun has again called on the central bank to examine whether stablecoins or Bitcoin could be included in foreign exchange reserves. Central bank governor Yang Chin-long said the bank’s position has “not changed for now,” but added that “times can change” and adjustments could be made if conditions shift. The wording stood out because it introduced flexibility into a position that has largely remained cautious.
Ge frames the debate around geopolitical resilience
Ge argued that Taiwan’s geopolitical situation should shape how reserve assets are evaluated. In his view, Bitcoin is the only asset that remains accessible and operational in both of the scenarios he described: a maritime blockade and a full-scale invasion. The comparison was aimed at the traditional reserve mix. He said the US dollar and gold could face practical deployment risks under physical disruption or financial sanctions, while Bitcoin’s decentralized structure means it does not rely on a single piece of physical infrastructure or an intermediary, at least in theory, as long as internet connectivity remains available.
He also cited a recent report from a US think tank that described Taiwan as “well suited” to hold some Bitcoin as a reserve asset, with the island’s geopolitical circumstances presented as a central reason.
Six international approaches cited in committee remarks
To support his case, Ge listed six ways countries have already gained exposure to Bitcoin or other virtual assets. The United States and El Salvador were described as holding them through official strategic reserve structures. Bhutan and Russia were cited as building positions through state-backed mining. China and the United Kingdom were presented as retaining seized or confiscated digital assets. Luxembourg was said to have directed sovereign fund capital into Bitcoin-related exchanges. Ukraine accepted international donations in Bitcoin during wartime. Switzerland’s central bank was described as gaining indirect exposure through stocks linked to Bitcoin’s value.
The point of the comparison was not that Taiwan should copy any single model. Ge’s argument was that digital asset exposure can be structured in different ways, and that each country chooses a route based on its own constraints and policy goals.
Stablecoins presented as a lower-volatility starting point
Because the central bank has long pointed to Bitcoin’s price swings as a major concern, Ge proposed a narrower first step: study stablecoins before Bitcoin. He said stablecoins are easier to move across borders, settle faster, and operate in digital environments in real time. Their prices are also relatively steadier than Bitcoin, and liquidity is deeper, which he argued makes them easier to fit inside a central bank risk-management framework.
He backed that claim with one market figure, saying stablecoin transaction volume reached $46 trillion last year. In his telling, that scale shows stablecoins are no longer a purely conceptual instrument. Ge also drew a clear line around the proposal. He said he was not calling for a major restructuring of foreign exchange reserves, but for a cautious review of whether stablecoins could serve as a small, risk-diversified component of strategic reserves.
Central bank leaves its current stance in place
Yang’s reply kept the official position intact while leaving room for future movement. He said the central bank’s attitude toward putting stablecoins or Bitcoin into a small part of reserve assets has not changed at this stage. Still, his remark that “times can change” suggested the issue is not closed.
The report also noted that Taiwan’s central bank produced a paper late last year laying out both supporting and opposing arguments on whether Bitcoin could qualify as a reserve asset. That indicates the topic has already moved into formal policy discussion. Ge welcomed that development and said it showed openness toward emerging financial questions.
For now, there is no decision on whether stablecoins could become even a small piece of Taiwan’s reserve mix. The public debate remains centered on volatility, risk control, and whether new forms of assets could stay usable under changing geopolitical conditions.