Controversy Over the U.S. Government's Bitcoin Holdings: From 200,000 Coins to Less Than 30,000 Coins

Recently, a document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act has caused a stir in the cryptocurrency community. The document reveals that a certain law enforcement agency holds only about 28,988 Bitcoins, valued at approximately $3.44 billion. This figure represents a nearly 90% decrease compared to the previously estimated 200,000 coins.

This news immediately sparked speculation in the market about whether the government had quietly sold off the majority of its holdings. However, independent journalists emphasized that this list only represents the Bitcoin held by the law enforcement agency and does not account for the "total supply" of government Bitcoin. Other agencies may still hold Bitcoin that has been seized but not yet officially confiscated.

The key to understanding this data lies in distinguishing between "seized assets" and "confiscated assets." The former refers to assets whose ownership has been legally transferred to the government through legal procedures; the latter refers to assets temporarily held during the investigation process, the ownership of which has not yet fully reverted to the government, and therefore cannot be sold.

Nonetheless, the discussion about whether the government has "dumped" Bitcoin has not subsided. Some industry insiders suggest that merely tracking on-chain footprints may not fully reflect the actual situation, as transactions may be conducted offline through custodians. This operation allows the transfer of ownership to be completed without generating on-chain transaction records.

In the current context, the disclosure of this data is particularly sensitive. Previously, political figures indicated that the government would retain its Bitcoin holdings as part of a "strategic Bitcoin reserve." A senator expressed shock at reports of a potential sale of more than 80% of the Bitcoin reserves, believing it would be a strategic blunder.

Some market analysts believe that the significant reduction in government Bitcoin holdings may explain the long-term stagnation of prices in the past and consider it a "bullish" signal. They also speculate that if the government needs to repurchase a large amount of Bitcoin to replenish its strategic reserves, it could have a significant impact on the market.

Whether these 28,000 Bitcoins represent the government's entire holdings or not, they have injected a key variable into the market. If the previous market pullback or stagnation was indeed caused by government over-the-counter selling, then once the chips have completed their transfer, the foundation for Bitcoin's rise may become even more solid.

What is even more noteworthy is the strategic implications: if the government shifts from a potential major seller to a possible demand for margin calls, the liquidity reconstruction brought about by this role reversal may have more far-reaching effects than simple data disputes.