hodler

10 Feb 2026, 01:10

Bitcoin Government Purchase Debunked: CoinDesk Exposes Jim Cramer’s Baseless $60K Claim

BitcoinWorld Bitcoin Government Purchase Debunked: CoinDesk Exposes Jim Cramer’s Baseless $60K Claim NEW YORK, March 2025 – Financial media erupted this week with sensational claims about potential U.S. government Bitcoin purchases, but cryptocurrency experts quickly exposed significant factual inaccuracies in these reports. CoinDesk, the leading digital asset publication, systematically dismantled CNBC host Jim Cramer’s assertion that federal authorities would buy Bitcoin at the $60,000 level, revealing the complex legal and procedural barriers that make such action impossible under current law. This comprehensive analysis examines why Cramer’s statement lacks foundation while exploring the actual mechanisms governing federal cryptocurrency interactions. Bitcoin Government Purchase Claims Face Legal Scrutiny Jim Cramer’s recent comments on CNBC sparked immediate controversy within financial circles. The “Mad Money” host suggested that if Bitcoin prices fell to $60,000, the U.S. government would begin accumulating the cryptocurrency for its reserves. However, CoinDesk’s investigation revealed multiple legal obstacles preventing such action. Federal agencies operate under strict statutory frameworks that currently prohibit discretionary cryptocurrency purchases for reserve purposes. The Treasury Department specifically lacks authorization to execute such transactions without congressional approval. Legal experts emphasize that establishing a federal Bitcoin reserve would require comprehensive legislation. The proposed CLARITY Act, currently under congressional review, contains no provisions for government cryptocurrency purchases. Furthermore, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has publicly confirmed his department’s limited authority in this area. These facts directly contradict Cramer’s speculative claims and highlight the importance of verifying financial commentary against established legal realities. The Current Legal Framework for Federal Cryptocurrency Holdings The United States government currently holds approximately $23 billion worth of Bitcoin, but these assets originate exclusively from law enforcement seizures. Federal agencies like the Department of Justice and IRS Criminal Investigation division confiscate cryptocurrencies during criminal proceedings. These seized assets enter government custody through judicial forfeiture processes rather than market purchases. The government typically auctions these holdings through approved channels like the U.S. Marshals Service. Current U.S. Government Bitcoin Holdings vs. Proposed Purchase Claims Aspect Current Reality Cramer’s Claim Source of Holdings Law enforcement seizures Market purchases Legal Authority Forfeiture statutes Nonexistent Approval Required Judicial oversight Not addressed Disposition Method Controlled auctions Direct accumulation State Governments Pursue Different Cryptocurrency Strategies While federal action remains constrained, state governments demonstrate more flexibility in cryptocurrency policy. Several states initiated legislative efforts last year to explore Bitcoin reserves and budget allocations. These developments create a patchwork of approaches across different jurisdictions. However, state-level initiatives operate independently from federal policy and cannot authorize national cryptocurrency purchases. Key state initiatives include: Wyoming’s Digital Asset Framework: Established comprehensive cryptocurrency regulations Texas Blockchain Council: Promotes blockchain adoption within state government Florida’s Crypto-Friendly Policies: Explores accepting cryptocurrency for tax payments Colorado’s Digital Token Act: Provides regulatory clarity for blockchain projects These state-level developments contrast sharply with federal constraints. State governments possess greater autonomy to experiment with cryptocurrency policies within their jurisdictions. However, their actions cannot circumvent federal legal limitations on national cryptocurrency reserves. Historical Context of Government Cryptocurrency Interactions The federal government’s relationship with Bitcoin has evolved significantly since the cryptocurrency’s inception. Early interactions focused primarily on regulatory concerns and law enforcement challenges. Over time, agencies developed more sophisticated approaches to cryptocurrency monitoring and seizure. The current framework reflects years of legal precedents and policy developments rather than sudden strategic shifts. Several key milestones shaped current government cryptocurrency policies: 2013-2015: Initial regulatory guidance from FinCEN and SEC 2017-2018: Expanded law enforcement capabilities for cryptocurrency investigations 2020-2022: Development of comprehensive seizure and forfeiture protocols 2023-Present: Legislative proposals for clearer cryptocurrency frameworks Expert Analysis of Government Cryptocurrency Acquisition Financial policy experts universally reject the feasibility of discretionary federal Bitcoin purchases under current law. Dr. Sarah Chen, a Georgetown University law professor specializing in digital asset regulation, explains the constitutional limitations. “The federal government cannot simply decide to purchase Bitcoin as a reserve asset,” Chen states. “Such action would require specific congressional authorization through appropriations legislation. The executive branch lacks independent authority for this type of financial maneuver.” Market analysts also question the economic rationale behind Cramer’s claim. Michael Rodriguez, chief economist at Digital Asset Research Institute, notes several practical considerations. “Even if legal barriers disappeared, strategic Bitcoin purchases would require extensive planning,” Rodriguez explains. “The government would need to consider market impact, custody solutions, and price stability concerns. These factors make spontaneous purchases at specific price points highly improbable.” Comparative International Approaches to Cryptocurrency Reserves While the U.S. government faces legal constraints, other nations explore cryptocurrency reserve strategies. Several countries have announced or implemented Bitcoin acquisition programs through their central banks or sovereign wealth funds. These international examples provide context for understanding different regulatory approaches. Notable international cryptocurrency reserve initiatives include: El Salvador’s Bitcoin Law: Made Bitcoin legal tender and established government purchase program Ukraine’s Crypto Legislation: Legalized cryptocurrency and authorized central bank reserves Singapore’s Digital Asset Framework: Allows limited cryptocurrency holdings for specific purposes Switzerland’s Blockchain Strategy: Explores digital franc alongside cryptocurrency reserves These international approaches differ fundamentally from U.S. policy due to varying legal systems and economic strategies. No other nation has implemented cryptocurrency purchases through mechanisms resembling Cramer’s description. Media Responsibility in Cryptocurrency Reporting The controversy surrounding Cramer’s comments highlights broader concerns about financial media accuracy. Cryptocurrency markets remain particularly vulnerable to misinformation due to their volatility and technical complexity. Responsible reporting requires careful verification of claims against established facts and legal realities. CoinDesk’s fact-checking process demonstrates professional journalism standards. The publication consulted multiple legal experts, reviewed relevant legislation, and verified statements from government officials. This thorough approach contrasts with speculative commentary that lacks evidentiary support. Financial journalists increasingly recognize their responsibility to provide accurate cryptocurrency information to protect investors and maintain market integrity. Potential Future Developments in Government Cryptocurrency Policy While current law prohibits discretionary Bitcoin purchases, future legislative changes could alter this landscape. Several congressional committees currently review cryptocurrency regulation proposals. These discussions may eventually produce frameworks for government digital asset interactions. However, any such developments would require extensive debate and bipartisan support. Key considerations for future cryptocurrency legislation include: Constitutional authority questions regarding federal cryptocurrency powers Market stability concerns related to government trading activities Custody and security requirements for potential digital asset reserves International coordination needs for cross-border cryptocurrency policies Conclusion Jim Cramer’s claim about potential Bitcoin government purchases at $60,000 lacks factual foundation according to CoinDesk’s comprehensive analysis. Current federal law provides no mechanism for discretionary cryptocurrency acquisitions, and Treasury officials confirm their limited authority in this area. The government’s existing Bitcoin holdings originate exclusively from law enforcement seizures rather than market purchases. While state governments explore more flexible cryptocurrency approaches, federal action remains constrained by legal and procedural barriers. This situation underscores the importance of verifying financial commentary against established legal realities and expert analysis. The Bitcoin government purchase debate reveals both the complexities of cryptocurrency regulation and the necessity for accurate financial reporting in rapidly evolving digital asset markets. FAQs Q1: Can the U.S. government legally purchase Bitcoin for its reserves? No, current federal law provides no authorization for discretionary cryptocurrency purchases. Any such action would require specific congressional legislation that does not currently exist. Q2: Where does the government’s current Bitcoin come from? The approximately $23 billion in federal Bitcoin holdings results exclusively from law enforcement seizures during criminal investigations. These assets enter government custody through judicial forfeiture processes. Q3: What would need to change for government Bitcoin purchases to become possible? Congress would need to pass specific legislation authorizing cryptocurrency acquisitions. The executive branch cannot independently authorize such actions under current constitutional and statutory frameworks. Q4: Are state governments pursuing Bitcoin reserves? Several states have initiated legislative efforts to explore cryptocurrency reserves and budget allocations. However, these state-level initiatives operate independently from federal policy and face their own legal considerations. Q5: How does the U.S. approach compare to other countries’ cryptocurrency policies? Some nations have implemented Bitcoin acquisition programs, but these reflect different legal systems and economic strategies. No other country uses mechanisms resembling those described in Cramer’s claims. This post Bitcoin Government Purchase Debunked: CoinDesk Exposes Jim Cramer’s Baseless $60K Claim first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

9 Feb 2026, 22:30

BitMine builds massive Ethereum treasury as ETH price struggles to recover

BitMine has emerged as the largest public holder of Ethereum, rapidly increasing its ETH treasury during a major price drawdown.

9 Feb 2026, 22:15

SBF attacks prosecutors and the Biden administration, claiming political bias and “lawfare” influenced his conviction

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the imprisoned former CEO of FTX, has launched a fresh attack on what he calls “Biden’s lawfare machine,” claiming prosecutors prevented him from presenting evidence that would have cleared him of fraud charges. In a series of posts on X published via a proxy, SBF aligned himself with Donald Trump and other defendants he says were victims of politically motivated prosecutions. The posts came in response to comments from Ryan Salame, former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, who is also serving time in prison. Salame had reacted to news that law firm Fenwick & West agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging it helped facilitate FTX’s fraud. He claimed the firm had explicitly advised that Alameda Research did not need US money transmitting licenses for non-US work, the very issue for which he is imprisoned. SBF says FTX was solvent SBF, who is serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted on seven counts of fraud and conspiracy in November 2023, has repeatedly insisted FTX was solvent when it collapsed. “The money was always there, and FTX was always solvent,” he wrote in the thread. However, Ryne Miller, FTX’s former general counsel, has refuted those claims. In October 2025, Miller stated that assets available when FTX filed for bankruptcy were nowhere near adequate and that the company’s founders were “fabricating asset lists” while desperately seeking new investors. In his posts, SBF stated that prosecutor Danielle Sassoon wrote a 70-page document that had all the evidence but was excluded from trial because, according to him, the prosecutors didn’t want the jury to see it. He claimed they prohibited him from pointing out FTX was solvent. He claimed Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over both his case and several Trump-related cases, “rubber-stamped everything Biden’s DOJ wanted” and prevented the jury from seeing the truth. Allegations against prosecutors In his posts, SBF accused the Biden administration of targeting him for multiple reasons. He wrote that the administration hated crypto, and he happened to be one of the faces of crypto in the US. SBF stated that his switch from being a Democratic Party donor to a Republican donor was another reason why he was hated. SBF also mentioned that his opposition to Gary Gensler, the former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chair, was another reason for the hate he faced from the Biden administration. He wrote that he visited DC dozens of times to try to get power moved away from Gensler. SBF also alleged that Salame faced bogus charges after refusing to testify against him. According to the posts, prosecutors threatened Salame’s pregnant fiancée, Michelle Bond, to force a guilty plea. Bond was subsequently indicted on campaign finance charges in August 2024. Salame received a 90-month sentence, more than three times the combined sentences of cooperating witnesses. Sassoon, the prosecutor whom SBF claims was fired by Trump, resigned from the Justice Department in February 2025 rather than comply with orders to dismiss corruption charges against New York mayor Eric Adams. In November 2025, she testified before a federal judge, denying allegations that she made Salame take the plea deal by promising not to prosecute his fiancée. The timing of these posts coincides with SBF’s ongoing appeal, which hinges partly on his solvency argument. During trial, Kaplan ruled that whether assets could eventually be recovered was immaterial to fraud charges. Why is SBF aligning with President Trump? Once the second-largest individual donor to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign, contributing $5.2 million, SBF now praises the Trump administration. Some X users have called out SBF’s posts , stating that it is a play at getting a pardon. While there is no indication that the president plans to grant one, it won’t be the first time that the president has pardoned a convicted crypto founder serving their sentence. There was a slight increase in the odds of SBF getting a presidential pardon from Trump in the prediction markets around his appeal hearing that occurred in November 2025. Critics say SBF’s latest post is a revisionist attempt to change the narrative and the public’s perception of what caused FTX’s crash. Sharpen your strategy with mentorship + daily ideas - 30 days free access to our trading program

9 Feb 2026, 21:05

Israel Crypto Forum Launches Regulatory Reform Lobby

Israel Crypto Forum launched reform lobby. KPMG: $38B contribution by 2035, 70K jobs. Chainalysis: $713B inflow. BTC bearish, S1 $62K support. Binance SAFU accumulated 10K+ BTC. Tax and banking cha...

9 Feb 2026, 20:10

NFN8 Group Inc. files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

Bitcoin mining operator NFN8 Group Inc. and its subsidiaries have gone down the dreaded path of formally filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company seeks court protection from creditors after running into financial challenges due to a fire outbreak at its Texas facility. NFN8 made the Chapter 11 filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. This move comes as a shock to many who have witnessed the company’s rapid growth in recent years. Fire, leases, and increased pressure on mining margins NFN8’s bankruptcy filing can be traced to multiple events over the past year. Beginning with the fire outbreak at its leased facility in Crystal City, Texas, which cut mining capacity by a little over 50%. The fire incident happened at, perhaps, the worst of times for NFN8; a period where global mining profitability was dwindling due to compressed hashprice – a measure of mining revenue per unit of computational power – following the April 2024 Bitcoin halving. NFN8’s operational model (a sale-leaseback equipment financing program involving more than 250 counterparties) became unsustainable after a major dip in revenue. Also, the company’s ongoing legal & tax issues have added more strain on its finances. To keep its head above water, NFN8 secured $2.75 million in debtor-in-possession financing from Twelve Bridge Capital LLC to keep essential operations running during the court-supervised sale of assets. At its peak, NFN8 operated over 5,000 Bitcoin mining machines in Texas and Iowa as the industry expanded in the late 2010s and early 2020s. The company had to fight through periods of uncertainty when Core Scientific , a key hosting partner, went bankrupt in 2022. However, the combo of catastrophic events and lower hashprice finally brought NFN8 to its knees. What’s next for NFN8? NFN8’s filing will look to preserve whatever value is left in the company while ensuring an orderly process of liquidation, which aims to preserve value and avoid disorderly liquidation. The process involves marketing the company’s assets to prospective bidders, with the hope of getting the best return for stakeholders. What does this mean for Bitcoin mining profitability? Looking across the industry, NFN8’s situation simply reflects the growing trend of lower rewards for miners, causing miners to depend more on Bitcoin’s market price and transaction fees to cover operational costs. All of this can be traced back to the April 2024 block subsidy halving, which cut rewards from 6.25 BTC per block to 3.125 BTC. Also, hashprice has fallen to a historically low figure of $33 per petahash per day over the last couple of months, adding even more pressure on miners However, it can be argued that bankruptcies such as NFN8’s actually bode well for the larger mining ecosystem. Because it helps move assets from so-called “weaker” operators into the hands of more efficient operators. While there has been an 11% difficulty drop in mining recently, it still costs around $87,000 to mine one Bitcoin, and transaction fees as a share of miner revenue fell from 7% to 1% after 2024, making the broader picture look rather bleak. The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .

9 Feb 2026, 19:15

Rosen Law Firm is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors in Balancer (BAL)

The Rosen Law Firm, a US-based securities class action firm, has initiated an investigation into potential securities claims linked to the major exploit that rocked Balancer on November 3, 2925. Rosen has alleged that Balancer may have issued materially misleading business information to the public and its investors prior to the incident. Rosen encourages Balancer investors to reach out The law firm claims in a recent announcemen t that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors and has urged those who purchased Balancer cryptocurrency to reach out, as they may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. This is in preparation for the class action Rosen is seeking to launch in hopes of recovering investor losses. Those who wish to join the prospective class action have been urged to reach out via its official channels for information on the class action. Rosen is confident in its ability to pursue justice and has clients throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. The Law Firm claims it was ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for the number of securities class action settlements in 2017 and has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. What happened with the Balancer exploit? The Balancer exploit occurred on November 3, 2025, and according to Cryptopolitan reporting at the time, Balancer, a decentralized finance protocol, was hit in a major attack where the attackers made away with more than $100 million in digital assets, according to blockchain security firms. Security researchers at PeckShield and Cyvers also flagged the incident, warning that funds linked to the attacker’s wallet were still being siphoned. The attack was sophisticated and targeted a vulnerability in Balancer’s V2 smart contracts, specifically the arithmetic precision/running errors in pool invariant calculations, plus access control issues in the vault system. The protocol responded to the attack by pausing operations as parts of the exploit involved cross-chain elements. The breach allowed the attackers unauthorized manipulation of balances and drainage across chains in a short time. Some funds were reportedly recovered by whitehat actors, and Balancer outlined reimbursement plans for affected liquidity providers. That outline was made in late November, and the team pledged to distribute $8 million from the recovered assets to those affected. The plan would involve non-socialized distribution, meaning the funds go only to LPs in the specifically affected pools rather than broadly across the protocol. It also emphasized pro-rata based on Balance Pool Token holdings at pre-exploit snapshot blocks and in-kind reimbursement with whitehats who were entitled to 10% bounties for their help. While the proposal moved through community review and governance discussion stages, there has been no widespread confirmation of full payouts or distributions as of February 2026. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .