CNB data shows a 1% Bitcoin allocation may improve returns without raising overall reserve portfolio risk.
Central bank policy rarely intersects with Bitcoin advocacy in such a direct way. That changed in Las Vegas, where a European central banker made a clear case for the asset’s portfolio. The remarks drew attention from both institutional investors and crypto participants. Even more, the discussion now shifts to whether sovereign adoption is closer than expected.
Michl Proposes Up to 5% Bitcoin Allocation in Central Bank Reserves
Aleš Michl used the Bitcoin 2026 conference to argue that Bitcoin can serve as a reserve asset. Speaking during a keynote titled “Diversifying Central Bank Reserves With Bitcoin,” he urged central banks to rethink portfolio construction. He said traditional reserve strategies may not be sufficient for future conditions. His comments placed the OG crypto directly within central banking discussions.
Michl framed the argument around diversification rather than speculation. He pointed to an internal analysis conducted by the Czech National Bank. Findings suggested that allocating just 1% of reserves to Bitcoin could raise expected returns. Risk levels, he said, would remain broadly unchanged due to Bitcoin’s low correlation with other assets.
CNB manages roughly $180 billion in reserves, giving weight to the analysis. Michl acknowledged Bitcoin’s volatility but noted that traditional assets also carry concentration risks. He argued that reserve managers already face exposure to correlated instruments. Adding a small Bitcoin allocation could counterbalance that structure.
Steps taken by the CNB set it apart from most central banks. Michl first raised BTC as a reserve option in early 2025. He later proposed allocating up to 5% of reserves. That proposal led to a deeper internal study. By November 2025, the bank had executed its first digital asset purchase through a test portfolio that included Bitcoin.
Central Bank BTC Debate Turns as Prague Push Gains Momentum
Trezor CFO Štěpán Uherik pointed to the contrast with the European Central Bank. ECB officials have argued that the firstborn coin lacks liquidity and is not suitable for reserves. Uherik said that Michl’s analysis directly challenges that view. He added that the debate may shift toward whether central banks can afford to ignore Bitcoin.
Standard Chartered previously suggested sovereign funds could treat Bitcoin similarly to gold. That comparison positions Bitcoin as a diversification tool rather than a fringe holding. Michl’s remarks give that thesis institutional backing.
Prague’s history with the OG crypto adds context to the CNB’s stance. The city hosted early developments such as the first mining pool and hardware wallet. Uherik noted that this background reflects a long-standing local connection to Bitcoin.
Attention is no longer centered on whether BTC qualifies for reserves. The focus is shifting to how long other central banks can ignore the data emerging from early adopters like the CNB.