Month: December 2024

Jeremy Rubin released a proposal two weeks ago titled Un’FE’d Covenants (FE = Functional Encryption). Given the ongoing debate over covenant proposals for Bitcoin the last year or two, his proposal marks a new practical option. All covenant proposals so far require a soft fork (actual opcodes), the development and implementation of unproven cryptography (Functional Encryption), or an absurdly high monetary cost to use (ColliderScript).

Jeremy’s proposal requires no softforks, and does not impose a burdensome and impractical cost on users to utilize. The trade off for that capability is a radically different security model. By using a system of oracles, and BitVM based bonds capable of slashing, covenants can be emulated on Bitcoin right now.

The Oracles

The first part of the scheme is obviously the oracles that enforce different covenant conditions. This is a relatively straightforward set up, and the first building block necessary for Jeremy’s proposal. The oracle has custody of the funds in this scheme, and is entrusted with the enforcement of the covenant conditions. You want the oracle to not have to locally keep track of the covenant conditions being enforced for each coin it custodies. This introduces state risk where if the oracles database is corrupted or lost it has no idea how to handle honest enforcement for everyone’s coins. In order to get around this problem, Jeremy makes use of Taproot.

Schnorr based keys can be “tweaked” by using the hash of data to modify a public key. This enables the tweaking of the corresponding private key to be able to sign for the modified key, as well as prove that whatever data was used to tweak the public key is committed to by that key. Having the oracle generate a key, and then the user tweaking that key with their covenant program allows a commitment to what the oracle is supposed to enforce while keeping the burden of storing that information on the user.

Oracles can also be federated in order to minimize the trust required in a single party to enforce things. From here, users can simply load the resulting address, and whenever they want to enforce the condition, approach the oracle(s) with the spending transaction, the oracle program, and the witness data necessary to prove that the transaction given to the oracle meets the conditions of the covenant. If the transaction is valid according to the covenant rules, the oracle signs it.

For any simple covenant where the outcomes are known ahead of time, such as CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV), users can immediately have the oracle pre-sign the transactions enforcing the covenant and simply delay using them until necessary.

An important scenario to consider requiring extra functionality is state based covenants, such as rollups, that progress regularly and have an actual state (the current balance of users) to keep track of. In the case of such covenants, the transactions the oracle signs must commit to the current state of the covenant using OP_RETURN so that the oracle can efficiently verify each transaction updating the rollup or other system without having to download witness data for the entire history. This is to keep the oracle from having to store state locally themselves, which as noted above creates risks.

In the long term the data requirements of oracles can be optimized by using zero knowledge proofs, so that the oracle can simply verify a proof that the transaction they are being asked to sign follows the rules of the covenant without having to verify the raw witness data for larger more complex covenants. Again though, in the case of systems like rollups, care must be taken in designing them to guarantee that data required to exit the system is made available to users so they have it in their possession if they need to contact the oracle directly to reclaim their funds.

The BitVM Bond

So far the scheme is entirely trusted. You are essentially just giving someone else your money and hoping they can be trusted to enforce the conditions of arbitrary covenants. By modifying the scheme above slightly, this can be secured with a crypto-economic incentive rather than pure trust.

Above it was described how OP_RETURN is required to be used to track state for stateful covenants. OP_RETURN can also be used to publish the witness data of any covenant transactions to prove the conditions were correctly fulfilled.

A BitVM circuit can be constructed to verify whether a transaction signed by the oracle successfully matches the conditions of the covenant it is enforcing. Remember that the key itself that is generated and funds sent to commits to the conditions of any covenant being enforced. Meaning that data, as well as a transaction being spent from the address, can be fed into a BitVM instance.

Oracles can then be required to post a collateral bond with a BitVM operator (who must also post a bond for the Oracle to claim if they are falsely accused). This way, as long as the bond value is greater than the value secured in covenants by an oracle, the system can be securely used. There would be no way for an oracle to violate the conditions of a covenant they are enforcing without losing money in aggregate.

Trade Offs

There are clear trade offs here that are materially worse than simply implementing covenants in consensus rules. Firstly, the oracle must be online and reachable in order to make use of oracle enforced covenants. With the exception of pre-signed covenants such as CTV, if the oracle is offline when users need to enforce a covenant, they can’t. The oracle must be present to sign.

Secondly, the liquidity requirements for oracle bonds can become massive if the system was ever widely adopted. This makes it unbelievably inefficient compared to native implementation of covenant opcodes at the consensus level.

Lastly, the extra data required to be posted on-chain in order for the BitVM bond scheme to work is much less efficient with use of blockspace than native covenant implementations.

Overall, the proposal is nowhere near as efficient and secure as native covenants. On the other hand, if we do wind up in the worst case scenario of pre-mature ossification, this is a very workable way to shoehorn covenants into Bitcoin without depending on unproven cryptography or completely impractical costs imposed on end users.

Jeremy has given us a worst case scenario option to expand the design space of what can be built on Bitcoin. 

As Bitcoin continues to mature, one of the most telling indicators of its longevity and integration into the broader financial ecosystem is the rapid growth of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). These products—offering mainstream, regulated exposure to Bitcoin—have garnered substantial inflows from both institutional and retail investors since their inception. According to data aggregated by Bitcoin Magazine Pro’s Cumulative Bitcoin ETF Flows Chart, Bitcoin ETFs have already accumulated more than 936,830 BTC, raising the question: Will these holdings surpass 1 million BTC before 2025?

The #Bitcoin ETFs have already accumulated 936,830 #BTC! 🏦

Will this surpass 1,000,000 BTC before 2025? 🪙

Let me know 👇 pic.twitter.com/UojJpJlC4P

— Bitcoin Magazine Pro (@BitcoinMagPro) December 16, 2024

The Significance of the 1 Million BTC Mark

Crossing the 1 million BTC threshold would be more than a symbolic milestone. It would indicate profound market maturity and long-term confidence in Bitcoin as a credible, institutional-grade asset. Such a large amount of Bitcoin locked up in ETFs effectively tightens supply in the open market, setting the stage for what could be a powerful catalyst for upward price pressure. As fewer coins remain available on exchanges, the market’s long-term equilibrium shifts—potentially raising Bitcoin’s floor price and reducing downside volatility.

The Trend Is Your Friend: Record-Breaking Inflows

The momentum is undeniable. November 2024 saw record inflows into Bitcoin ETFs, surpassing $6.562 billion—over $1 billion more than the previous month’s figures. This wave of capital inflow dwarfs the rate of new Bitcoin creation. In November alone, just 13,500 BTC were mined, while more than 75,000 BTC flowed into ETFs—5.58 times the monthly supply. Such an imbalance underscores the scarcity dynamics now in play. When demand vastly outpaces supply, the natural market response is upward price pressure.

A Chart of Insatiable Demand

In a landmark moment, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF recently outpaced the company’s own iShares Gold Trust in total fund assets. This moment was captured visually in the November issue of The Bitcoin Report, revealing a clear shift in investor preference. For decades, gold sat atop the throne of “safe haven” assets. Today, Bitcoin’s emerging role as “digital gold” is validated by ever-growing institutional allocations. The appetite for Bitcoin-backed ETF products has become relentless, as both seasoned investors and new entrants acknowledge Bitcoin’s potential to serve as a cornerstone in diversified portfolios.

In less than a year BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF surpassed it’s gold fund.

Long-Term Holding and Supply Shock

One key characteristic of Bitcoin ETF inflows is the long-term nature of these investments. Institutional buyers and long-term allocators are less likely to trade frequently. Instead, they acquire Bitcoin through ETFs and hold it for extended periods—years, if not decades. As this pattern continues, the Bitcoin held in ETFs becomes essentially removed from circulation. The result is a steady drip of supply leaving exchanges, pushing the market toward a potential supply shock.

This trend is clearly illustrated by the latest data from Coinglass. Only about 2.25 million BTC currently remain on exchanges, highlighting a persistent decline in readily available supply. The chart below (provided separately) shows a divergence where Bitcoin’s price appreciation continues upward, while the exchange balances head down—an irrefutable signal of scarcity dynamics at work.

The available balance of Bitcoin on exchanges is in an increasing downtrend.

A Perfect Bitcoin Bull Storm and the March Toward $1 Million

These evolving dynamics have already propelled Bitcoin beyond the $100,000 milestone, and such achievements could soon feel like distant memories. As the market rationalizes a potential journey towards $1 million per BTC, what once seemed like a lofty dream now appears increasingly feasible. The “multiplier effect” in market psychology and price modeling suggests that once a large buyer comes into play, the ripple effects can cause explosive price surges. With ETFs continually accumulating, each major purchase may ignite a cascade of follow-on buying as investors fear missing out on the next leg up.

Incoming Trump Administration, the Bitcoin Act, and a U.S. Strategic Reserve

If current trends weren’t bullish enough, a new and potentially transformative scenario is brewing on the geopolitical stage. Incoming President-elect Donald Trump in 2025 has expressed support for the “Bitcoin Act,” a proposed bill directing the Treasury to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The plan involves selling part of the U.S. government’s gold reserves to acquire 1 million BTC—about 5% of all currently available Bitcoin—and hold it for 20 years. Such a move would signal a seismic shift in U.S. monetary policy, placing Bitcoin on par with (or even ahead of) gold as a cornerstone of national wealth storage.

With ETFs already driving scarcity, a U.S. governmental move to secure a large strategic Bitcoin reserve would magnify these effects. Consider that only 2.25 million BTC are available on exchanges today. Should the United States aim to acquire nearly half of that in a relatively short timeframe, the supply-demand imbalances would become extraordinary. This scenario could unleash a hyper-bullish mania, pushing Bitcoin’s price into previously unthinkable territory. At that point, even $1 million per BTC might be viewed as rational, a natural extension of the asset’s role in global finance and national strategic reserves.

Conclusion: A Confluence of Bullish Forces

From near-term ETF inflows surpassing new issuance fivefold, to longer-term structural shifts like a potential U.S. Bitcoin reserve, the fundamentals are stacking in Bitcoin’s favor. The growing scarcity, combined with the multiplier effect of large buyers entering the market, sets the stage for exponential price appreciation. What was once considered unrealistic—a Bitcoin price of $1 million—now sits within the realm of possibility, underscored by tangible data and powerful economic forces at play.

The journey from today’s levels to a new era of Bitcoin price discovery involves more than just speculation. It’s supported by a tightening supply, unyielding demand, rising institutional acceptance, and even the potential imprimatur of the world’s largest economy. Against this backdrop, surpassing 1 million BTC in ETF holdings before 2025 may be just the beginning of a much larger story—one that could reshape global finance and reimagine the very concept of a reserve asset.

For the latest insights on Bitcoin ETF data, monthly inflows, and evolving market dynamics, explore Bitcoin Magazine Pro.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.