• As of mid-2025, the United States holds approximately 207,189 BTC, making it the largest confirmed government holder of Bitcoin.
• China’s government holds an estimated 194,000 BTC, primarily from seizures related to the PlusToken Ponzi scheme.
• The US has formalized its holdings through the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, established by an executive order in March 2025.
• China has not publicly disclosed any strategic reserve policy for its Bitcoin holdings.
• The US government’s approach includes active management and potential acquisition strategies, while China’s stance remains opaque.

Bitcoin has become more than just a decentralized currency; it’s now a strategic asset for nation-states. As inflation concerns mount and central banks grapple with fiat instability, Bitcoin is increasingly being compared to digital gold. 

Among the countries at the forefront of this paradigm shift are the United States and China, each with substantial BTC holdings. But the big question remains: Who really controls this digital reserve asset?

US Holdings: Transparency and Strategic Intent

Confirmed Holdings: As of April 2025, US government-controlled wallets hold approximately 207,189 BTC. This figure is publicly verified via Arkham Intelligence and includes assets seized through major enforcement operations like Silk Road, Bitfinex hacks, and the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware case.

The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR): In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14099, establishing the “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve”. This move made headlines globally, marking the first time a major economy officially initiated integrating Bitcoin into its sovereign reserves. The SBR mandates the US Treasury to maintain seized Bitcoin assets as a national reserve. The order also allows for the development of budget-neutral strategies to acquire additional Bitcoin without taxpayer expense.

According to the executive order:

• The US Treasury administers the SBR in collaboration with the Department of Justice.
• It is funded solely via forfeited assets, not taxpayer money.
• Its purpose is to protect the nation’s economic security by holding a censorship-resistant, finite monetary asset.

This policy framework aligns Bitcoin with traditional reserve assets like gold and US Treasurys. It also adds legitimacy to the asset in the eyes of global policymakers. More importantly, it provides a playbook for other governments considering similar strategies.

China’s Holdings: Power in the Shadows

Estimated Holdings: China is believed to hold between 190,000 and 194,775 BTC. The majority was seized from the PlusToken Ponzi scheme in 2019. The PlusToken operation defrauded investors out of more than $3 billion worth of crypto, and Chinese authorities later confirmed they had confiscated 194,775 BTC and 833,083 ETH, as well as other assets. While some reports suggest portions of these assets were auctioned off, onchain data and wallet tracking by Arkham Intelligence and other analysts show that a significant amount of Bitcoin remains unsold in government-controlled wallets. This makes China the second-largest confirmed state holder of BTC, right behind the U.S. 

However, in comparison to the US, China has policy ambiguity:

• China has never publicly declared Bitcoin as part of its strategic reserves, nor has it created a formal mechanism to manage or utilize the holdings. 
• Despite banning crypto trading in 2021 and shutting down most domestic Bitcoin mining operations, China’s state-backed institutions have studied the role of Bitcoin as a strategic asset. 
• A 2022 white paper by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences suggested Bitcoin could one day function as a hedge against US dollar dominance, but no official adoption followed. 

China’s strategy is therefore inferred rather than declared. This strategic ambiguity mirrors the country’s broader approach to global finance, where little is revealed.

Historical Context: Mining Dominance 

Up until 2021, China accounted for more than 60% of the global Bitcoin mining hashrate. This mining dominance allowed Chinese entities to accumulate BTC at scale. However, the government cracked down on crypto mining in May 2021, citing environmental and financial stability concerns. This forced a mass exodus of miners to Kazakhstan, the US, and other jurisdictions.

The US capitalized on China’s retreat, becoming the world’s largest mining hub by late 2022. This helped domestic mining companies like Marathon Digital and Riot Platforms flourish and provided more regulatory clarity to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Comparative Analysis: Transparency vs. Opaqueness

Market Implications of State Holdings

• Supply shock potential: With nearly 400,000 BTC held between the US and China, the two superpowers collectively control roughly 2% of Bitcoin’s total supply, and significantly more when illiquid coins and long-term holders are factored in. In a system where new BTC issuance halves every four years and daily mining output is just 450 BTC (post-2024 halving), this state-level stash has an outsized weight. If either country were to offload even a fraction of its reserves, it could flood the market, crash prices, and erode investor confidence. On the flip side, continued holding or further accumulation could tighten supply further and accelerate Bitcoin’s march toward becoming a true global store of value.
• Policy as a price driver: Bitcoin is hyper-sensitive to regulatory news, and sovereign actions pack the biggest punch. When the US announced its Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in March 2025, BTC jumped nearly 8% in 48 hours, as traders priced in both legitimacy and reduced circulating supply. Similarly, past rumors of China selling seized BTC, particularly around the PlusToken haul, have triggered abrupt liquidations and flash crashes, even if the actual coins never moved. In a volatile market driven as much by narrative as fundamentals, government policy acts like a macro lever, shaping both sentiment and price.
• Global influence: Other countries are taking notes. The Bitcoin arms race may be just beginning. El Salvador, the pioneer of BTC legal tender status, now holds over 6,111 BTC and continues daily dollar-cost averaging via presidential mandate despite IMF concerns. Argentina’s new administration, grappling with IMF restructuring, has proposed Bitcoin-denominated trade with Brazil, signaling a willingness to move away from dollar hegemony. Meanwhile, countries like Russia, Iran, and the UAE have shown interest in using crypto, particularly Bitcoin, for sanctions-resistant trade. Even central banks in Africa and Southeast Asia are quietly studying Bitcoin as part of their reserve diversification strategies. The result? A geopolitical Bitcoin game theory scenario, where early movers may gain strategic advantages, and latecomers risk exposure to rising BTC prices and reduced global monetary leverage.

Forward-Looking Scenarios

While current state-level Bitcoin holdings are already reshaping the narrative around sovereign reserves, the real intrigue lies in what comes next. The following scenarios are purely speculative and hypothetical, meant to explore possible futures based on existing trends, strategic behavior, and geopolitical pressures. These are not predictions, but rather thought experiments to understand how government actions could shape the digital asset landscape in profound ways.

• Scenario 1: US Buys More: If the US government were to actively purchase BTC on the open market, beyond its current strategy of holding seized assets, the implications would be massive. With spot Bitcoin ETFs, sovereign entities, and institutional funds already competing for a limited supply, such a move could create an intense supply crunch. Given Bitcoin’s fixed issuance schedule and dwindling miner rewards post-halving, even modest buying pressure from the US Treasury could potentially push up prices. 
• Scenario 2: China Dumps Holdings: In the event of a liquidity crisis, political realignment, or regulatory pivot, China could choose to offload its Bitcoin reserves. While this would likely create short-term selling pressure, the impact would be absorbed relatively quickly due to growing institutional demand and market maturity. In fact, it might even be seen as a buying opportunity by long-term investors. 
• Scenario 3: Global Bitcoin Reserve Standard: With rising distrust in fiat currencies, growing debt burdens, and increasing calls for monetary multipolarity, there’s a plausible future in which Bitcoin becomes a neutral settlement layer among nations, much like gold post-Bretton Woods. In this world, BTC serves not as a replacement for national currencies but as a digital reserve asset for intergovernmental trade, debt collateralization, or emergency liquidity buffers. If such a standard were to emerge, early accumulators like the US and China would hold a powerful first-mover advantage. Their Bitcoin holdings could even become bargaining chips in future global negotiations, much like gold reserves during the 20th century.
• Scenario 4: Coordinated Multinational Accumulation: Another plausible future involves a coordinated accumulation of Bitcoin by a group of countries, particularly those aligned against US monetary dominance. In this scenario, nations within the BRICS bloc or similar alliances begin collectively purchasing and holding Bitcoin as part of a broader strategy to diversify away from the US dollar. This accumulation could occur alongside other assets like gold or oil, forming a multi-asset reserve system that supports cross-border trade and settlement. The geopolitical implications would be significant: coordinated state-level buying would rapidly absorb available supply in an already scarce market, driving up prices and triggering a wave of FOMO among neutral countries and private institutions. Over time, Bitcoin would evolve from a decentralized monetary experiment into a strategic instrument of global finance, used not only for trade settlement but also as a tool of influence in a shifting economic order. In many ways, it would mirror the role the petrodollar played in the 20th century, but with decentralization and digital immutability at its core.

Conclusion

The battle for Bitcoin supremacy is not just technological or monetary but also has elements of geopolitics. The US has opted for transparency, strategy, and accumulation. China holds vast reserves but guards its intent. Both approaches have implications far beyond crypto.

The next decade will show whether Bitcoin becomes a cornerstone of state powers.

FAQs

Q1: How did the US acquire its Bitcoin holdings? 

The US acquired BTC through seizures tied to criminal activity, including Silk Road and Bitfinex-related operations. These assets are now managed under the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

Q2: Does China have a formal BTC reserve strategy? 

No official strategy has been declared, though China’s holdings are substantial. Its policy direction remains unclear.

Q3: What is the global significance of these holdings? 

With nearly 400,000 BTC between them, the US and China have significant market sway. Their decisions can influence global Bitcoin liquidity, price, and adoption trajectories.

Q4: Could this lead to a digital Bretton Woods? 

If Bitcoin continues to be adopted as a neutral global reserve asset, yes. The world could potentially see a shift toward a Bitcoin-backed reserve system, but nothing can be confirmed yet.

Q5: Are there any reliable sources to track government BTC holdings? 

Yes. Platforms like Arkham Intelligence, Glassnode, and public DOJ reports are regularly used to verify US holdings.