Over the weekend, a wave of excitement spread across social media, with influencers and Bitcoin advocates claiming that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had officially recognized Bitcoin as “digital gold.” These statements stemmed from a misinterpretation of the IMF’s newly updated Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7), which outlines how digital assets should be tracked in international financial accounts.

The confusion began when posts on X (formerly Twitter) claimed that the IMF had formally labeled Bitcoin as “digital gold,” a status traditionally reserved for precious metals like gold. Influential figures, including prominent Bitcoin advocate Max Keiser, fueled the speculation, suggesting that the IMF’s recognition of Bitcoin as “digital gold” marked a turning point for the cryptocurrency. Keiser even hinted that Bitcoin would soon be included in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket, alongside traditional assets like gold and the U.S. dollar.

However, a closer examination of the IMF’s 1,076-page report reveals that these claims are based on a misreading of the document. Dennis Porter, CEO and co-founder of the Satoshi Act Fund, took to social media to clarify the misunderstanding. According to Porter, the speculation arose from a line in the report referring to “new digital assets designed to be used as a means of payment or act as a store of value.” Porter emphasized that it was a “massive stretch” to interpret this phrase as the IMF endorsing Bitcoin as “digital gold.”

In reality, the IMF’s report makes no such endorsement. The document describes Bitcoin and other digital assets as “nonproduced nonfinancial assets,” a category that places them in the same classification as commodities or property, rather than precious metals. This categorization is significant because it suggests that Bitcoin, unlike traditional currencies, does not serve as an official monetary reserve.

The IMF report goes on to clarify that Bitcoin is fungible and can be divided into equal pieces, underscoring its status as a medium of exchange rather than a store of value like gold. In fact, Bitcoin is listed alongside other digital assets, such as stablecoins and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), to highlight how these assets should be recorded and tracked in international accounts.

While the IMF report acknowledges the growing role of cryptocurrencies in global finance, it does not suggest that Bitcoin is “digital gold” or that the IMF will add it to its reserves. Instead, the manual emphasizes the need to track cross-border crypto transactions with greater accuracy and detail. This reflects a broader recognition of the importance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy, but it does not elevate Bitcoin to the status of a precious metal or a central bank reserve asset.

In conclusion, the IMF has not labeled Bitcoin as “digital gold,” and the excitement generated by social media posts appears to be based on a misunderstanding. The IMF’s updated guidelines provide a more nuanced view of cryptocurrencies, recognizing their role in global finance but clarifying that they are not equivalent to traditional monetary reserves like gold. Bitcoin’s place in the global financial system continues to evolve, but for now, it remains a nonfinancial asset rather than a new form of gold.