China National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC) recently accused the United States Government of orchestrating a massive crypto theft — alleging that about 127,000 BTC (roughly US $13 billion) was stolen from a Chinese mining pool called LuBian back in December 2020. (CoinDesk)

According to China’s report, the hack was not just regular cybercrime, but a “state-level operation.” The delayed movement of the stolen coins — only beginning in mid-2024 — is cited as evidence of government-level involvement. (Unchained)

The Bitcoin in question was later seized by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2025. U.S. authorities say the seizure was legal, tied to criminal proceeds allegedly linked to the Prince Group, led by businessman Chen Zhi — accused of fraud and money-laundering. (The Times of India)

China rejects that explanation. Beijing argues that the seizure was a cover — that the U.S. simply legitimized the stolen Bitcoin rather than returning it or publicly acknowledging the hack. (Business Standard)

🔎 Why this matters — crypto, geopolitics and market effects

The dispute transforms what once looked like a criminal theft into a geopolitical standoff — digital assets are now part of the growing tussle over cyberspace, national security, and financial sovereignty. (ET Edge Insights)

Roughly 0.65% of the total BTC supply is implicated — if these coins remain locked or under state control, that could tighten supply, affect liquidity and possibly influence long-term Bitcoin valuations. (The Economic Times)

The case underlines the increasing difficulty in keeping cryptocurrencies truly “neutral” or apolitical — large-scale BTC holdings might become leverage in state-level disputes.

🧾 What each side claims

SideKey Claims / ArgumentsChina / CVERCThe December 2020 hack was a sophisticated, state-backed cyber operation. The delayed movement and seizure of Bitcoin by the U.S. in 2025 represents an attempt to cover up or legitimize the theft. (The Times of India)United States / DOJThe confiscated BTC is part of criminal proceeds tied to fraud and money-laundering by Prince Group / Chen Zhi. The seizure was legal, not a hacking heist. (Business Standard)

📉 What market watchers & analysts say

Some analysts view the dispute as a potential trigger for further volatility in crypto — fear and uncertainty around legal ownership and state involvement can spook investors. (The Economic Times)

Others argue that this may reinforce BTC’s identity as a geopolitical asset, where large holdings could be used as leverage — highlighting how crypto is no longer just financial infrastructure, but also power infrastructure. (ET Edge Insights)

🕊️ What’s unresolved

There has been no public forensic evidence released so far to conclusively prove that the U.S. government carried out the 2020 hack. China’s claims remain unverified in the public domain. (ET Edge Insights)

U.S. officials have not publicly responded in detail — beyond legal arguments tied to fraud — leaving the allegations largely unaddressed in substantive or technical terms. (Business Standard)

For the crypto community and investors, the central question remains: who truly controls those 127,000 BTC — and what does that mean for overall trust in crypto as “decentralized”?

#CryptoWar #BitcoinHeist #USChinaClash #BTCMarketImpact #DigitalSovereignty

🔗 Here’s the link you asked to include: https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0G5SWGZQC