Saving in Bitcoin: what to consider and what risks to assume in 2026
Allocating part of savings to Bitcoin is a decision that has gained presence in recent years. The approval of spot ETFs in the United States in January 2024 and the progressive entry into force of the European MiCA regulation have institutionalised the asset. But that doesn’t eliminate its nature: Bitcoin remains a high-volatility asset, with historical drawdowns exceeding 80 % and no underlying cash flow.
This article covers the arguments usually made in favour of “saving in Bitcoin”, the risks assumed by those who do so, the current regulatory framework in the European Union, and the tax obligations that apply. It’s an informational analysis, not a recommendation.
⚠️ Important notice: not investment advice
This article has informational purposes and does not constitute financial, tax, or investment advice. Cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, are high-volatility assets whose value can drop significantly in short periods. Past returns do not guarantee future returns. Before allocating any amount of money to Bitcoin or other crypto assets, consult a registered financial adviser in your country and assess your risk tolerance, time horizon, and personal patrimonial situation.
What “saving in Bitcoin” exactly means
Before evaluating the idea, it helps to clarify terms. “Saving” traditionally implies preserving the value of capital for future use, with expectation of preserving or slightly increasing purchasing power. Classical savings instruments (interest-bearing accounts, term deposits, treasury bills) seek this preservation with low risk.
Bitcoin doesn’t fit that definition. It’s an asset with annualised volatility historically between 60 % and 100 %, versus 15-20 % of the S&P 500 or 3-5 % of a European public debt basket. Buying Bitcoin and holding it (what crypto slang calls “HODLing”) is closer to investing in a speculative asset than saving in the classical sense.
When someone says “saving in Bitcoin”, they usually refer to one of these practices:
- Periodic and sustained purchase of small amounts (DCA, Dollar Cost Averaging).
- Long-term holding (years or decades) without selling in downturns.
- Using Bitcoin as a small part of patrimony, not as substitute for traditional savings.
None of these practices eliminates risk. They distribute it over time or limit exposure to overall patrimony.
Arguments usually made in favour
Defenders of Bitcoin as long-term store of value usually rely on these arguments. They’re presented without editorial endorsement: they’re the usual reasoning in the debate.
Limited supply. The Bitcoin protocol sets a maximum supply of 21 million units. There’s no central bank that can issue more. In a context of continued monetary expansion of major fiat currencies, programmed scarcity is presented as potential protection against purchasing power dilution.
Growing adoption. The number of active addresses, merchants accepting Bitcoin, countries recognising it as means of payment, and institutional flows has grown year by year. The approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States in January 2024 opened access to the asset to traditional investors who couldn’t previously access it directly.
Portability and global liquidity. Bitcoin can be transferred anywhere in the world in hours, without intermediaries and with normally modest commissions (though variable according to network congestion). This makes it especially attractive in countries with capital controls.
Independence from intermediaries. Someone who custodies Bitcoin in their own wallet has direct control of the asset, without depending on a bank or entity that can restrict access.
High historical returns. Over very long term (10+ years), Bitcoin has been one of the highest-returning assets in recent financial history. This return has come with the highest volatility too.
Arguments against and real risks
Any honest analysis has to present concrete risks as well.
Extreme volatility. Bitcoin has suffered drawdowns (drops from previous peak) exceeding 80 % in several cycles: 2011, 2013, 2018, 2022. Recovering those drops has required years. Those who bought near previous cycle peaks took between 2 and 4 years to recover nominal capital, and more in real terms adjusted for inflation.
Doesn’t generate cash flow. Unlike stocks (dividends), bonds (coupons), or real estate (rent), Bitcoin doesn’t produce income by itself. Its value depends exclusively on others being willing to buy it at a given price. This doesn’t necessarily make it bad as an asset, but it changes the nature of analysis versus productive investments.
Growing correlation with traditional markets. One of the historical arguments in favour of Bitcoin was its uncorrelated character with the rest of assets. Data since 2020 shows this decorrelation has diminished: in financial stress episodes, Bitcoin has fallen alongside tech stocks rather than preserving value independently.
Custody risk. Someone who holds Bitcoin on a centralised exchange depends on that exchange’s solvency and good management. The collapses of FTX (2022), Celsius (2022), and others showed that “not your keys, not your coins”. Holding Bitcoin in your own wallet eliminates that risk but introduces another: loss of private keys is irrecoverable.
Personal security risk. Fraud, phishing, wallet-specific malware, SIM swapping. Final security responsibility falls on the user, without the protection traditional banks offer in case of fraud.
Regulatory risk. Crypto asset regulation is in constant evolution. Regulatory changes can significantly affect the value or usability of the asset.
Environmental cost. The energy consumption of the Bitcoin network is subject to ongoing public debate. Some institutional investors have excluded Bitcoin from their portfolios by ESG criteria.
Survivorship and recency bias. Bitcoin success stories dominate conversations. Stories of people who bought near peaks and liquidated with large losses get discussed much less. Analysing only the former leads to biased estimates of expected return.
Regulatory framework in the European Union
The MiCA Regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets, Regulation EU 2023/1114) is the comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto assets in the European Union. Its entry into force was progressive between 2024 and 2025.
What MiCA implies in practice:
Authorisation of crypto service providers (CASPs). Exchanges, custodians, and other providers operating in the EU need specific authorisation and must comply with capital, governance, and user protection requirements.
Transparency requirements. Providers must publish white papers with clear information on risks, technology, and functioning of the assets they offer.
Specific stablecoin regulation. Stablecoins referenced to euros or other official currencies require additional authorisation and fully backed reserves.
Retail consumer protection. MiCA introduces cooling-off rights, standardised pre-contractual information, and suitability obligations for crypto services.
Sanctions for non-compliance. The framework establishes a harmonised sanctioning regime across the EU.
Bitcoin as an asset isn’t directly regulated by MiCA (it’s a decentralised crypto asset with no identifiable issuer), but associated services (exchanges, custodians, cards with crypto top-up) are within regulatory scope.
Tax aspects
Tax obligations for Bitcoin holders are clear and are not fulfilled by claiming anonymity. Bitcoin isn’t anonymous: it’s pseudonymous, and exchanges authorised in the EU report operations to tax authorities.
Capital gains and losses. Bitcoin sale gains are taxed as savings income under most European jurisdictions’ income tax frameworks, with rates varying by country. Losses can be offset against other capital gains within specific limits.
Savings income. Returns from staking, lending, farming, or other crypto activities are taxed as movable capital income or economic activities depending on the case.
Foreign holdings reporting. Several EU countries require reporting crypto holdings custodied abroad above certain thresholds. Spain’s Modelo 721 applies for holdings over 50,000 € as of 31 December.
Provider reporting. Crypto service providers operating in EU jurisdictions have information reporting obligations regarding operations and balances of their users.
Crypto purchases. Each payment made with cryptocurrencies (for example, using Bitcoin to pay at a merchant or top up a card) is considered a barter and can generate a taxable event if there’s a gain versus acquisition price.
Consulting a tax adviser specialised in crypto assets before operating is the reasonable route.
What to do if you already have Bitcoin and want to be able to use it
This is where Bitsa fits with real relevance. Bitsa is not a savings platform, nor an exchange, nor a custody service. It’s not a place to “save in Bitcoin”.
Bitsa is a prepaid Visa card with associated IBAN that accepts direct top-up from Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If you already have BTC and want to convert part to euros for everyday use, the app allows doing so without going through a centralised exchange and without transferring afterwards to a bank account.
The process:
- In the Bitsa app, select “Top up” and choose Bitcoin.
- Indicate the amount to top up (in BTC or its euro equivalent).
- The app generates a unique blockchain address for that transaction.
- Send the BTC from your wallet or exchange to that address.
- Once the transaction is confirmed by the blockchain, the equivalent euro amount appears as card balance.
Critical detail: the blockchain address that Bitsa generates changes with every transaction. Don’t save it or reuse it. Sending BTC to an old Bitsa address may result in irreversible loss of funds.
This flow is useful for those who already hold BTC and want to convert part to everyday spending without friction. It doesn’t turn Bitsa into an instrument to save in Bitcoin. BTC custody until the moment of top-up remains the user’s responsibility, in their wallet or exchange of choice.
For more frequent use combining crypto and travel, the specific article on prepaid crypto cards for digital nomads goes deeper into combining wallets, exchanges, and card.
Final reminder
This article has informational purposes. It is not financial, tax, or investment advice. Decisions on allocating money to Bitcoin or other crypto assets should be made after consulting a registered financial adviser, assessing your personal situation, risk tolerance, and time horizon.
Frequently asked questions about Bitcoin and saving
Is Bitcoin a good form of savings?
Bitcoin doesn’t fit the traditional definition of savings instrument due to its high volatility. Some people allocate a small part of their patrimony to Bitcoin with long-term horizon assuming the risk, but this is a decision that must be made with full knowledge and prior consultation with a financial adviser. This article doesn’t recommend or discourage the practice.
Is it legal to buy and hold Bitcoin?
Yes. Buying, holding, and transacting with Bitcoin is legal in the European Union and most jurisdictions. Applicable tax obligations must be complied with.
Is Bitcoin anonymous?
No. Bitcoin is pseudonymous: transactions are publicly recorded on the blockchain with addresses that don’t include personal data, but on-chain analysis tools allow in many cases linking addresses to people or entities. Also, exchanges authorised in the EU apply KYC and communicate operations to tax authorities.
How much should be allocated to Bitcoin?
The most cited informal rule in the sector is not to allocate to cryptocurrencies more than the percentage of patrimony you could lose completely without compromising your financial stability. For many people this means very small figures or zero. Personal decision should be made after consulting a registered financial adviser.
What’s the difference between self-custodying Bitcoin and leaving it on an exchange?
Self-custodying Bitcoin (in a wallet where only you control the private keys) eliminates the risk of an exchange collapsing but introduces the risk of irrecoverable loss if keys are lost. Regulated EU exchanges offer convenience and (under MiCA) specific protections, but the user maintains exposure to provider risk. The choice depends on each user’s profile.