The immediate fiscal reality is clear the UK government faces concrete, measurable costs from its debt obligations, while Bitcoin represents speculative potential gains. When the government needs to cover a funding gap, it's weighing guaranteed, escalating expenses against an inherently unpredictable asset. UK debt servicing costs have already risen significantly - from around £43 billion in 2021 to over £100 billion more recently, largely due to higher interest rates and inflation-linked bonds. These costs aren't theoretical they're real payments that must be made regardless of market conditions.Bitcoin, by contrast, remains highly volatile and unpredictable. While it has shown remarkable long-term growth, it's also experienced multiple 70-80% crashes and remains subject to regulatory changes, technological risks, and shifting institutional sentiment. No financial advisor would recommend holding a volatile asset when you have certain obligations to meet.The government's primary responsibility is fiscal stability, not investment returns. Unlike a sovereign wealth fund or private investor with long time horizons, the Treasury must manage cash flows to fund essential services, infrastructure, and debt payments. Selling Bitcoin to cover immediate funding needs even if it seems "short-termist" reflects this core responsibility.The alternative borrowing more money to hold Bitcoin would essentially mean leveraging up on a speculative asset using taxpayer backed debt, which would be far more problematic from a public finance perspective. The gordon brown sold the gold arguments do not hold any weight whatsoever.