United States’ Bitcoin Holdings Top $24 Billion After Ruling Out Buying

bitcoinistPublicado a 2025-08-18Actualizado a 2025-08-18

Resumen

On-chain data shows the US is one of the world’s largest Bitcoin holders, with its portfolio now exceeding $24 billion....

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

On-chain data shows the US is one of the world’s largest Bitcoin holders, with its portfolio now exceeding $24 billion. However, recent events have shown that the possibility of the US government increasing its stash is very low. Particularly, the US government’s strategy for cryptocurrency took a new turn this week after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified that Washington will not be actively buying any additional Bitcoin.

Bessent Rules Out New Purchases But Leaves A Possibility

While speaking in a Fox Business interview, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained that the government has no plans to buy additional Bitcoin beyond its current reserve. The Treasury chief said the reserve will continue to be funded primarily through assets seized in criminal cases rather than direct purchases. His estimates place the value of the reserve between $15 billion and $20 billion.

Bessent later softened his position on social media, noting that even though the US is not allocating budgetary resources to acquire more Bitcoin, it is committed to “budget-neutral pathways” for expanding reserves to make the country the Bitcoin superpower of the world. The statement suggests that auctions, seizures, and non-traditional acquisitions could still increase holdings in the future, even if the Treasury avoids direct market buys.

Bitcoin Holdings Push Toward $24 Billion

Data from blockchain analytics platform Arkham Intelligence reveals a bigger picture than Bessent’s estimates of $15 billion to 20 billion. According to Arkham, wallets linked to the US government currently hold about 198,022 BTC, valued at approximately $23.42 billion. Many of these holdings originated from seizures related to criminal activity, including the well-known Silk Road case.

The portfolio, however, extends well beyond Bitcoin. Arkham’s data reveals holdings of about 59,951 ETH, worth $273 million, along with 347 million USDT and smaller allocations across other assets such as 750 WBTC, 40,293 BNB, 5,205 WETH, and 13.6 million BUSD. Taken together, the government’s digital asset holdings are valued at approximately $24.27 billion. This figure recently climbed as high as $25 billion during Bitcoin’s surge above $124,000 last week.

Bitcoin
Source: Chart from Arkham

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump signed into law the creation of a strategic crypto reserve, a move many interpreted as the start of government-led Bitcoin accumulation. Trump himself had many investors increase their expectations after stating that the United States would prioritize US-based cryptocurrencies like BTC as part of its financial strategy. 

This context is what made Bessent’s recent statement so significant. Although the reserve exists in law, the Treasury has now made it clear that active market purchases of Bitcoin are not on the table for the time being. However, it is clear that the US government isn’t planning to sell its holdings anytime soon, which might flood the market with selling pressure.

Bitcoin
BTC trading at $114,859 on the 1D chart | Source: BTCUSDT on Tradingview.com
Featured image from Pixabay, chart from Tradingview.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Scott Matherson is a leading crypto writer at Bitcoinist, who possesses a sharp analytical mind and a deep understanding of the digital currency landscape. Scott has earned a reputation for delivering thought-provoking and well-researched articles that resonate with both newcomers and seasoned crypto enthusiasts. Outside of his writing, Scott is passionate about promoting crypto literacy and often works to educate the public on the potential of blockchain.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHace 24 min(s)

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片