US vs. China: Who Holds More Bitcoin and Why It Matters

Key Takeaways

• U.S. holds approximately 2 million BTC across public companies, ETFs, and government-controlled wallets.
• China’s direct holdings are unclear, but its past mining power and demand still shape Bitcoin.
• FIT21 could reshape crypto regulation in the U.S., unlocking broader institutional and strategic adoption.
• Bitcoin’s geopolitical role is rising, with national access becoming a tool of economic influence.

Bitcoin’s blockchain allows complete visibility into every transaction but does not show real-world identities. As a result, calculating the national Bitcoin holdings depends less on wallet balances and more on observing past enforcement actions, institutional participation at the national level, mining activity, and future Bitcoin policy trends.

The United States and China are two dominant forces in the global cryptocurrency landscape. However, both countries have held contrasting approaches that have shaped Bitcoin’s price discovery throughout the years, and it continues to influence its trajectory today.

This article explores how government policies on Bitcoin and digital asset management shape global financial strategy, focusing mainly on the size of Bitcoin exposure held by the United States and China. Understanding both positions offers insight into market dynamics and the role of decentralized assets.

What Does National Bitcoin Holdings Mean?

Unlike traditional assets, Bitcoin isn’t created or stored by a central bank. A country’s Bitcoin holdings can mean Bitcoin held directly by the government, owned by state-controlled entities, or indirectly through companies headquartered within that country.

• Law enforcement seizures: Bitcoin is acquired through criminal investigations, exchange hacks, or confiscation from scams like PlusToken or Silk Road.
• ETF or exchange exposure: Indirect national-level control through regulated financial products or platforms domiciled in that country.
• Mining and infrastructure oversight: Bitcoin is earned or governed through domestic mining activity, energy control, and regulation of crypto networks.

In this context, “holding” doesn’t always mean ownership; it often reflects strategic influence over how Bitcoin is accessed, moved, or stored.

What are the Strategic Implications of Government-Owned Bitcoin and Why Does it Matter?

Whether seized or retained, state-held Bitcoin shapes market behavior, geopolitical leverage, and financial innovation.

• U.S. strategic advantage: Holding large Bitcoin reserves provides financial leverage and optionality. Government auctions impact supply dynamics, which affects the Bitcoin price, while a clear legal framework supports regulated institutional holdings of Bitcoin without fear of policy uncertainty.
• China’s indirect influence: Even without directly confirmed reserves, China’s former dominance in mining and its citizens’ ongoing demand reflect continued influence over Bitcoin’s global footprint.

Current Bitcoin Reserves: US vs. China

United States’ Bitcoin Holdings

As of 2025, the United States is the largest confirmed holder of Bitcoin among national governments, holding an estimated 213,000 BTC under federal control, primarily from criminal seizures. These include famous cases such as:

Key noteworthy cases include:

• Silk Road: 69,369 BTC from Silk Road seized from the original Silk Road case in 2012.
• James Zhong: 50,676 BTC from James Zhong , who exploited a vulnerability in Silk Road in 2012.
• Bitfinex Hack: 94,643 BTC recovered from the 2016 Bitfinex hack.

A federal court has ruled that the 94,643 Bitcoin, seized initially in connection with the 2016 Bitfinex hack, will be returned to the exchange. It is difficult to precisely say how much Bitcoin the United States holds because these assets may have been auctioned off, but a significant portion remains under the custody of the US Marshals Service and other federal entities. 

These holdings are publicly disclosed and verifiable on-chain and managed within legal frameworks.

China’s Bitcoin Seizure and Unclear Holdings

In 2020, Chinese authorities confirmed the seizure of 194,775 Bitcoin in connection with the dismantling of PlusToken, a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors across Asia. The scale of the seizure was made public through a court ruling from the Yancheng Intermediate People’s Court in Jiangsu Province.

While the court ruling confirmed the seizure in 2020, it offered no further transparency about the fate of the assets, stating that only the digital currencies would be “processed according to law.”

But was the PlusToken reserve quietly liquidated?

In the absence of an official follow-up, on-chain analysis has become a key tool in understanding what happened next. 

According to CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju, blockchain data shows that the seized Bitcoins were moved through coin mixers, a process typically used to obscure transaction trails, and subsequently deposited into centralized exchanges, including Huobi, in the latter half of 2019.

This movement suggests that the assets were liquidated soon after the seizure, in mid-2019, rather than retained by the state as part of any long-term reserve strategy. Although China is often listed among the top countries holding Bitcoin, the available data indicates that these holdings may no longer exist in government-controlled wallets.

The PlusToken case illustrates a broader challenge in estimating national Bitcoin reserves where seizure does not always equate to strategic accumulation. Without public reporting or wallet transparency, assumptions about government-held crypto remain speculative, especially in jurisdictions with limited financial disclosure.

China’s Bitcoin Mining Dominance and Its Fall

Until the first half of 2021, China was the undisputed center of global Bitcoin mining, accounting for up to 75% of the total Bitcoin network hashrate as of September 2019, according to data from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) at the University of Cambridge.

Chinese mining dominance was closely tied to seasonal energy migration patterns. Miners moved between provinces like Xinjiang, which offered low-cost coal-based power during the dry season, and Sichuan, where hydroelectric power was abundant during the rainy season.

This migration enabled miners to maximize profits while operating within regional power ecosystems, a practice confirmed by geolocation data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI).

In addition to its mining footprint, China announced in June 2021 that the Chinese government would initiate a complete ban on domestic Bitcoin mining and intensify restrictions on cryptocurrency trading.

China’s share of the global Bitcoin hashrate dropped from around 46% in April 2021 to 0% by July 2021, according to the CBECI . The sudden drop to 0% does not necessarily mean that mining activity has completely stopped in China. It could indicate miners became hidden—using VPNs or proxy services to mask their locations. However, the drop marked a shift toward a more controlled digital finance strategy centered around developing the digital yuan (e-CNY), a central bank digital currency aimed at reinforcing monetary oversight and reducing reliance on decentralized crypto assets.

From Regulation to Accumulation: US Firms Bet Big on Bitcoin

In 2024, the U.S. became a central player in Bitcoin’s global footprint through transparent enforcement and regulated financial integration. As of April 7, 2025, U.S.-based public companies and spot Bitcoin ETFs collectively hold an estimated 2 million BTC, accounting for more than 10% of Bitcoin’s total circulating supply. 

Of the 75 largest Bitcoin-holding companies tracked by HODL15Capital, 33 are based in the United States, holding approximately 646,169 BTC, led by MicroStrategy, which alone holds 528,185 BTC.

Meanwhile, the top 10 U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, including BlackRock’s IBIT and Fidelity’s FBTC, manage a combined approximate number of 1.35 million BTC based on assets under management.

This dual presence in both corporate treasuries and regulated financial markets firmly positions the U.S. as the global leader in publicly declared Bitcoin exposure.

In 2025, Donald Trump amplified the government’s stance, declaring support for Bitcoin during a speech at the Nashville Bitcoin Conference. Trump’s camp announced plans for a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve and broader Digital Asset Reserve on March 6, 2025 , making Bitcoin part of national economic policy.

Alongside this, the U.S. is advancing legislation like the FIT21 Act , proposing a formal framework for digital assets. Pro-crypto states like Texas and Wyoming also drive adoption through mining incentives and crypto-friendly banking laws.

These developments reflect a shift in sentiment within the U.S. Government that Bitcoin is no longer treated as a fringe investment. It’s emerging as a strategic economic tool.

Why FIT21 Matters in the Context of U.S. Bitcoin Holdings

The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) is a legislative effort to finally establish regulatory clarity for digital assets in the U.S. market.

This matters because the United States holds over 2.2 million BTC through government seizures, public companies, and regulated ETFs, as mentioned above, with clear institutional participation and legal oversight. In contrast, China’s influence stems more from past mining dominance, OTC demand, and infrastructure control, despite officially restricting corporate and ETF holdings.

Despite this deep exposure to Bitcoin, before the Trump-era shift, the legal and regulatory framework surrounding digital assets in the U.S. remained fragmented, inconsistent, and uncertain, pushing many crypto businesses overseas, as Marc Andreessen and other prominent investors noted.

The lack of regulatory clarity left innovators and institutional capital seeking safer, more predictable jurisdictions.

FIT21 aims to change this by:

• Clarifying regulatory oversight: Divides responsibility between the SEC and CFTC, ending the ongoing jurisdictional tug-of-war.
• Defining digital asset categories: This establishes clear legal classifications for cryptocurrencies, giving exchanges, custodians, and ETFs a stable compliance framework without the fear of retroactive enforcement.
• Promoting U.S. innovation: Provides regulatory certainty that encourages digital asset firms to build and stay in the U.S., driving long-term capital inflow and infrastructure growth.

With the U.S. already managing trillions in digital asset exposure through public markets and ETFs, this bill could ensure the country continues to lead not just in holdings, but in policy, capital formation, and global competitiveness. In short, FIT21 is a strategic safeguard for the world’s largest regulated Bitcoin ecosystem.

What Role Does Bitcoin Play in US-China Economic Relations?

Bitcoin is poised to play a subtle yet strategic role in the evolving economic dynamics between the U.S. and China. While the U.S. seeks to integrate the asset, China’s approach revolves around restriction.

• U.S. market integration: Firms like MicroStrategy and Bitcoin ETF issuers directly impact capital flows and pricing mechanisms.
• China’s unofficial activity: Despite the ban, OTC markets and offshore platforms continue serving demand from mainland citizens.
• Hong Kong’s hybrid model: Licensed Bitcoin ETFs and Web3 initiatives create a regulatory gray zone that may serve as a controlled access point for Chinese capital.

While Hong Kong operates under China’s “One Country, Two Systems” framework, it maintains its own financial and regulatory environment. Beijing has allowed Hong Kong to position itself as a crypto-friendly hub, launching licensed spot Bitcoin ETFs and supporting Web3 development. 

This positions Hong Kong as a possible outlet for Chinese investors to access Bitcoin, operating in a space that’s more permissive than the mainland, though still closely watched. It reflects the complex balance China is navigating between control and openness in digital finance.

Why National Bitcoin Holdings Matter

The strategic implications of state-level exposure to Bitcoin go well beyond speculation and touches the core of financial sovereignty and capital mobility.

• Supply control: Bitcoin’s fixed supply means every major national accumulation tightens available liquidity.
• Regulatory clout: Nations with legal control over exchanges, miners, or custodians define global access.
• Strategic signaling: Holding, banning, or ignoring Bitcoin sends a message about a country’s digital posture.
• Capital mobility: In restrictive environments, Bitcoin offers a pressure valve for wealth to move across borders.

Conclusion

While the U.S. has more transparent and verifiable Bitcoin holdings through public companies, ETFs, and federal seizures, China’s influence persists through past mining dominance, hidden demand, and infrastructure control.

The real takeaway isn’t just about the numbers but about how both nations engage with Bitcoin as part of their broader economic agenda and strategic positioning for a digital future. As Bitcoin continues to globalize, national involvement will play a growing role in shaping its utility, liquidity, and long-term impact.

FAQs