Month: April 2025

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Mining Centralization in the U.S.: A New Risk for the Industry?

A groundbreaking study from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) claims that the United States now dominates Bitcoin mining, controlling as much as 75.4% of the global hashing power. “The U.S. has solidified its position as the largest global mining hub (75.4% of reported activity),” the CCAF reports, based on a survey of 49 mining firms representing nearly half the Bitcoin network’s hashrate. 

This concentration, equating to roughly 600 exahashes per second (EH/s) of the global 796 EH/s, raises a pressing concern: Is Bitcoin mining becoming dangerously centralized in the U.S., and what risks does this pose for the emerging asset’s future?

Howard Lutnick, U.S. Secretary of Commerce and former CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, recently shared insights into the Trump administration’s vision to position the U.S. as a Bitcoin superpower. “It’s like gold. To me. It’s a commodity,” Lutnick said in an interview with Frank Corva of Bitcoin Magazine, highlighting Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins. He outlined plans to “turbocharge” U.S. mining through the Commerce Department’s Investment Accelerator, which streamlines permits for miners to build off-grid power plants. “You can build your own power plant next to [your data center]. I mean, think about that for a second,” he said.

This pro-business stance has fueled America’s mining boom, but the CCAF’s findings suggest a downside: centralization. For years, Bitcoiners worried about China’s dominance, which peaked at 65–75% of global hashrate before its June 2021 mining ban. “In 2019, China dominated global Bitcoin mining, accounting for 65–75% of the total Bitcoin network,” a 2025 Nature Communications study notes. When China banned mining, hashrate dispersed globally, with many operations relocating to the U.S., drawn to states with abundant energy and favorable policies. This shift caused a 50% market correction but paved the way for a 130% rise toward the end of the year, demonstrating the market’s resilience.

While China’s historical hashrate concentration never led to network abuse, it was a constant concern. Now, with the U.S. holding 75% of hashrate, similar risks emerge. The Trump administration is Bitcoin-friendly, but a future administration could turn hostile, leveraging centralized hashrate to control the network. Unlike China’s ban, a future U.S. government might try to regulate or manipulate mining, using executive powers like sanctions to censor transactions — a threat amplified by mining’s concentration.

The U.S.’s federal structure offers a potential safeguard. The division of powers between states and the federal government could enable resistance to federal overreach. In states with significant mining activity, officials and the public might argue that manipulating the industry harms Bitcoin’s value, impacting investors. Such resistance could preserve the network’s integrity.

The weakening of the U.S. monetary sanctions regime might play to our advantage. Following the 2022 seizure of Russian treasuries, nations misaligned with U.S. policy have reduced U.S. bond purchases, undermining the fiat rails abused in sanctions. The Trump administration is shifting toward tariffs to control goods rather than money flows, potentially reducing the threat of monetary censorship. This pivot buys Bitcoin time, as centralized hashrate may be a soft target for federal intervention.

Nevertheless, American Bitcoiners must stay proactive. Deepening Bitcoin adoption to embed it widely in the economy and throughout the world could deter censorship, as attacks on the network would harm personal wealth, spurring backlash. History also shows miners adapt when displaced — China’s ban proved that — but governments learn. A future U.S. administration might not ban mining but seek to control it, exploiting centralization.

The Bitcoin industry faces a critical juncture. With as much as 75.4% of hashrate in the U.S., even low estimates of 50% present a centralization risk that looms large. Should we diversify globally or lean into America’s mining dominance? As Lutnick’s vision unfolds, Bitcoiners must ensure this sovereign money remains resilient, regardless of who holds power.

This post Bitcoin Mining Centralization in the U.S.: A New Risk for the Industry? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Has a Bitcoin Vision for America

On Wednesday, April 23, 2025, I sat down with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick to discuss his Bitcoin vision for America.

We discussed the U.S. Department of Commerce’s new investment accelerator that will benefit Bitcoin mining companies; why he views bitcoin as a commodity, like gold; and why it’s only natural that the Bitcoin industry finds a home in the United States.

Bitcoin Miners to Benefit from Investment Accelerator

On March 31, 2025, the Commerce Department launched an investment accelerator.

The aim of the accelerator is to help firms that want to invest in America get new projects off the ground.

It assists by making clear to companies what regulations they must understand, and it helps them to obtain the necessary permits.

Secretary Lutnick envisions the investment accelerator being beneficial to Bitcoin mining companies.

“We’re going to make it so that if you want to mine Bitcoin and you find the right place to do it, you can build your own power plant next to it,” said Secretary Lutnick in the interview.

“You don’t necessarily need to be on the grid, and you are going to see this happen: miners are going to put their data centers on top of gas fields, and then put a plant right next to them so that they won’t be behold to drawing power [from the existing grid],” he added, alluding to the notion that Bitcoin miners can use waste gas to power their operations.

“You’ll see the next generation of miners in America will be able to control their destiny and control the cost of power, [which], I think, is going to turbocharge Bitcoin mining in America.”

Bitcoin as a Commodity

Toward the middle of the interview, Lutnick expressed that he views bitcoin as a commodity and not as a currency.

“Bitcoin is a commodity, and it should be treated like a commodity,” said Secretary Lutnick.

“It should be treated like oil. It should be treated like gold,” he added.

“It’s not a currency.”

Secretary Lutnick stated that in treating bitcoin as a commodity, he might consider having the Bureau of Economic Affairs (BEA) employ bitcoin in its calculations the same way it employs gold.

Currently, the BEA uses gold to refine and calculate its National Economic Accounts, which includes GDP. The bureau also accounts for gold in trade statistics, recording gold exports and imports as part of its International Transactions Accounts (ITAs).

Bitcoin Is Welcome in the United States

Secretary Lutnick stressed that the Bitcoin industry is welcome in the United States.

He noted that the current administration has true Bitcoin believers in it, like himself and White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, and that he wants to see Bitcoin thrive in America.

“America is the most extraordinary business place on Earth,” said Secretary Lutnick.

He added that the goal is for the Bitcoin industry to figure out how to “win in America” because the Trump administration plans to help the industry achieve the highest degree of success here, an approach that is the polar opposite approach of the previous administration’s.

“It was treated under the Biden administration like you were doing something wrong,” said Secretary Lutnick. 

“Now you have that in the rear view mirror, and it’ll never come back,” he added.

And when he said “never,” he didn’t just mean never as far as the Trump administration is concerned. He meant that the United States is a Bitcoin country from here on out.

“You’ve never seen the United States of America embrace something and then turn their back on it later,” said Secretary Lutnick. “That’s never happened.”

This post U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick Has a Bitcoin Vision for America first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Frank Corva.

Bitcoin Magazine

An Introduction to The Satoshi Papers

In The Satoshi Papers, we begin a multifaceted exploration of how monetary institutions in particular contribute to or militate against the flourishing of human societies. The essays in this volume review the nature of money, the history and functions of central banking, the relationship between state financing and war, and the introduction of Bitcoin as a new platform for transacting value. The authors are in broad agreement that the advent of a global, politically neutral, nonstate, peer-to-peer sound money is not a prescription for the replacement of all other forms of money; rather, it transforms some of the background assumptions about the relationship between states, societies, and individuals that have suffered from an authoritarian consensus in recent decades. Quite simply, there was a world before Bitcoin, and there is a world after it. If politics is the art of the possible, as certain proponents of realpolitik have argued, then the domain in which that art is practiced has now been re-formed.

The global adoption of Bitcoin is occurring in a world transitioning through the obsolescence of unipolar power, which effectively organized much of the second half of the twentieth century. The twenty-first century is giving rise to an increasingly multipolar world in which sovereign actors vie to implement their own political projects propelled by a nexus of commodity wealth, industrial power, and technological innovation. This does not preclude the United States from championing and exerting its power as a jurisdictional base for industrial production and unfettered invention. Indeed, the United States would be wise to embrace the possibilities afforded by sound money—as a reserve asset, as a new basis for private capital accumulation and investment, and as a denominator of value—and to resolve to lead the world in its adoption and institutionalization. This is the case made clearly by Avik Roy in his contribution to The Satoshi Papers, “Then They Fight You.”

But embracing any form of sound money has predictably led to fierce resistance from state actors who view it—correctly—as a potential constraint on state spending. As Josh Hendrickson demonstrates in his essay, “The Treasury Standard,” the adoption of the US dollar as the global reserve currency and the US Treasury as the global reserve asset was part of an uncoordinated yet decisive strategy by generations of leaders within the US government to finance large-scale, open-ended military conflict. This created a global financial system in which the sovereign debt of the United States functions as the main reserve asset for countries around the world, effectively bankrolling unlimited spending by the US government. Sarah Kreps argues in her essay, “Easy Money, Easy Wars?,” that this has decoupled warmaking from taxation—and therefore from the democratic process. Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s prediction that democracies would be less likely to make war than countries with authoritarian systems of government has therefore been disproven in a manner that he and his eighteenth-century contemporaries—including the founders of the United States—could not foresee. Kreps proposes that the US government move to a bitcoin standard in part to make war expensive again and thereby to adjust the incentives that motivate states and the populations that fund them to make war.

In his essay, “Bitcoin and Credit,” Jack Watt makes a similar case for the private banking industry: He argues that the elimination of both sound money and reserve requirements for lending institutions has resulted in an unsustainable explosion of illusory credit that not only drives inflation worldwide but is destined to collapse as populations discover that their alleged money substitutes—bank-issued money—are not, in fact, redeemable for base money, or real money. He further suggests that bitcoin’s capacity to be self-custodied by its owners will, over time, shrink the amount of money people deposit in banks, lowering banks’ capacity to lend. Although this will result in a contraction of the banking industry, it will also give rise to a proliferation of short-term credit instruments that are directly redeemable for base money. This much-needed correction—in some ways, a return to older forms of banking—will ensure that credit is deployed toward economically valuable ends that result in more sustainable and disciplined growth overall.

Some countries have already openly welcomed the reality of bitcoin as a currency and payment system alongside traditional fiat currencies and legacy payment rails. One such country, Argentina, recently elected a president, Javier Milei, who has given legal protection to contracts denominated in any currency, including bitcoin, and pledged to abolish the country’s central bank. Leopoldo Bebchuk traces the history of Milei’s commitments by critically examining the mixed legacy of the Central Bank of Argentina for the Argentinian people. In particular, he demonstrates that the central bank has proven helpless to prevent the significant devaluation of Argentinian currency, year after year, decade after decade. In the process, generations of Argentinians have seen their wealth and savings destroyed, with the result that most Argentinians able to do so currently save in a foreign currency (the US dollar). Bebchuk examines the potential for bitcoin to serve as another store of value alongside the dollar and asks whether central banks can indeed fulfill the mandates of currency stability and sound credit provision that drove their establishment during the European Middle Ages and early modern period.

Just as bitcoin has automated the issuance and verifiable transfer of money without involving central banks, so can it leverage its control of funds to enforce legal or normative social judgments without involving a court system. Aaron Daniel shows how efforts to implement dispute resolution without a state—like eBay’s Community Court in India, the Mobile Jerga initiative in Afghanistan, the Benoam property damage claims resolution system in Israel, or the Próspera Arbitration Center in Honduras—have relied on centralized entities to manage and disburse the funds awarded in disputes, ultimately depending on courts to coerce compliance with those award decisions. Such centralized systems can only persist so long as the communities using them hold extremely high trust in the integrity of the authorities overseeing the control and disbursal of funds. Bitcoin’s programmability, by contrast, allows its protocol to connect to resolutions produced by any off-chain online dispute resolution (ODR) system, no matter how large or small, anywhere in the world. This enables bitcoin transactions to function as noncustodial escrow, only releasing funds upon the issuance of a decision by an online dispute resolution system. Using Bitcoin for such a system could help close what some legal scholars have called “the justice gap” between those who can afford to legally defend themselves and those who cannot, and between those who live under a reasonably well-functioning legal system and those who face a deficit or absence of legal protection.

The ability of individuals to privately contract and economically transact without the intervention of the state is a cornerstone of any free market system and free society. This principle served as a guiding light for the cypherpunk movement, a group of technologists who foresaw during the 1980s and 1990s that the digitization of public and commercial services via the internet opened up significant new vectors of domination for both governments and corporations. The cypherpunks recognized that if strong cryptography was not used to secure communications and economic transactions, people everywhere would be easily surveilled and controlled. As a result, they dedicated themselves to building strong encryption standards and protocols for censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer digital cash.

Satoshi Nakamoto, a pseudonymous developer, was the first to synthesize decades of achievements in these areas to create a workable internet money in the form of Bitcoin. Andrew Bailey and Craig Warmke trace the history of Bitcoin’s adoption after its release by Nakamoto. They show that he first seeded his invention with the groups most likely to use it for its peer-to-peer and censorship-resistant properties—the cypherpunks and the P2P Foundation—while betting on the greed of speculators to scale its adoption to a much wider user base. Ultimately, however, it was Nakamoto’s stepping aside entirely from the Bitcoin project that enabled it to realize its promise as a decentralized digital monetary system. Bailey and Warmke also examine the adoption of new monies from a game-theoretic perspective, explaining how a currency does not have to gain universal acceptance in order to function as a viable medium of exchange. In the process, they suggest that different types of monies can be useful for different purposes, appealing to certain kinds of users for specific use cases.

This leads us to an overarching question: What is money? Natalie Smolenski examines several leading anthropological and economic theories of money to propose a definition that can serve as a point of departure for both disciplines: Money is the cheapest valuable that reliably satisfies creditors in a given market. In other words, creditor satisfaction is the purpose and function of money. Satisfaction is a moral sentiment before it is a legal or technological process: It is the creditor’s psychological acceptance that the debt they believe is owed to them has been paid. Money is only one way of satisfying creditors, however; creditors may also demand or take satisfaction through social processes of apology and reparation, social ostracism, transfer of nonmonetary assets, and ultimately violence, which includes institutions such as the blood feud, vendetta, revolution, and war. By serving as a method for reliably satisfying creditors, money therefore significantly lowers the costs of transacting—not only by solving the problem of the double coincidence of wants, which economists have amply described, but by dramatically lowering the probability of violence in economic exchange. Crucially, however, not every money will satisfy creditors to the same extent in every social setting and for every type of transaction. Accordingly, different markets evolve different types of money that are both valuable enough to satisfy creditors and cheap enough to be produced and used repeatedly and at scale. This explains the chimerical nature of money as a cheap, reproducible valuable.

The essays in The Satoshi Papers are works of political theory, history, economics, anthropology, and philosophy. In times of crisis and upheaval, when the concepts through which the world has been understood are actively shifting, our first imperative is to think. This volume gathers together inquiries from across disciplines to clarify what is at stake and what distinctions will enable us to skillfully navigate our era of profound transition. We hope these essays will serve as invitations to think further—to build a community of good faith interlocutors participating in the shared project of transforming science into new tradition, enabling a self-sovereign future for humanity at large.

The Satoshi Papers is now available in the Bitcoin Magazine Store – order the paperback today or pre-order the limited Library edition, shipping mid-June 2025.

This post An Introduction to The Satoshi Papers first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Natalie Smolenski.

Bitcoin Magazine

Citizenship By Investment: The Emerging Market for State Services via Citizen X

Accelerating the Sovereign Individual thesis, Citizen X is opening new doors for passport diversification focused on Bitcoiners with the recent acquisition of Plan B Passport. 

Citizen X, the tech-savvy Citizenship by Investment (CBI) company based in Switzerland, made a big splash this week with news of its merger with Plan B Passport, Katie “The Russian” Ananina’s Bitcoin focused CBI company. 

“They’re insanely into privacy and security,” said Katie about the company, explaining the ways in which this merger super charges both companies and can accelerate the “Sovereign individual movement.”

The Sovereign Individual, a book initially published in 1997, has quickly become a staple of Bitcoin culture, with a proliferation of the word ‘Sovereign’ in brands and memes all throughout the industry. 

The book posits a future where political power begins to decentralize from nation-states and legacy institutions to individuals, thanks to the economic forces unlocked by the internet and accelerating advancements in technology, like digital cash.

According to the book, growing trends in technology that favor individuals will increasingly persuade governments to compete for high-value talent, reframing the relationship between citizens and governments into a consumer-to-service-provider relationship. A market for state services and citizenships would become the norm as the entrepreneurs and wealth creators become increasingly agile, international and difficult to tax. 

The idea of the sovereign individual and the many predictions made in the book about how the digital age will play out has inspired many entrepreneurs and technologists, including Katie and Alex Recouso, the CEO of CitizenX. Since the book’s publication believers in the sovereign individual thesis have been positioning to take advantage of this paradigm shift and some are even working to accelerate it. 

Demand for a modern update to government processes intended to create more efficient state services appears to be a growing trend, with Elon Musk’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ (DOGE) initiative blessed by Trump representing a recent example. The political structures and institutions that built the world many of us were born into are, arguably, in many cases outdated and increasingly obsoleted by technological advancements. 

It is Katie’s personal frustrations with immigration bureaucracies throughout the world that lead her to start Plan B Passport. As a young star athlete and professional Russian sailor, she was denied visas and even got scammed by an immigration lawyer, forging her experience with immigration laws in both the US and Europe.

“I was denied European visas twice, an American visa once, and I was in a Russian national team. I was coming to Europe for the World Championship. How do you deny me a visa? I’m 15 years old, coming with my coach and the team, like, what’s the logic?” Katie recalled.

Katie was scammed by a US immigration lawyer, an event that challenged her to learn the system and laid the groundwork for the foundation of the company.

“That’s how it all started. I got to the US, paid $12,000 to an immigration attorney only to be ghosted. Literally. Basically, she just stopped responding to my emails and phone calls, and I had to self-represent,” she told Bitcoin Magazine.

Katie was soon after introduced to the Sovereign Individual Book.

“I obviously re-read the book way too many times, specifically the chapter on the end of nation-states,” Katie explained about the Sovereign Individual thesis. “The way they talk about it is that basically there will be a competition between nation-states for talent, the fruits of labor, and the capital. They naturally will compete by providing a better service at a better price, just like an actual capitalistic environment.”

“It’s accelerating right now,” she added. “Investment-based migration, that’s the way forward for governments now. That’s where you can dictate with your capital who you choose to benefit from your capital and the fruits of your labor. And you choose them according to the taxes, the lifestyle, the social environment, the freedom of speech, and all those good things.”

However, Bitcoiners have not had an easy time getting their wealth recognized or accepted in exchange for citizenship. Bureaucrats working at embassies often know little, and legal firms servicing this market need to do serious due diligence, often requiring proof of funds and expecting bank statements. But for the longest time, Bitcoiner companies have been unable to get bank accounts and Bitcoiners have had accounts closed when suspected of trading Bitcoin or crypto.

Throughout most of Bitcoin’s history, banks and governments not only ignored the digital asset and its entrepreneurs (with a few exceptions), but actually avoided relationships with the industry, in part due to political pressure from policy programs like Operation Choke Point.

Indeed, Bitcoiners were so underbanked that, for example, Tether, the biggest stablecoin in the digital currency market, was invented to give the industry a way to hedge and trade into dollar value, given that access to the banking system was rarely a good option.

This lack of recognition by legacy systems created a gap in the market that Katie identified: “I know Bitcoiners’ pain points better than anybody in the industry. I know Bitcoin itself better than anybody in the Citizenship by Investment (CBI) industry, and I could provide Bitcoiners with solutions that others couldn’t,” she told Bitcoin Magazine.

“All those countries that provide citizenship by investment,” she explained, “they have very thorough due diligence. So they want to see the source of funds. Bitcoiners come to any other CBI player who is a dude in a suit in his law office and say, ‘Hey, I mined bitcoin,’ or ‘I bought bitcoin in MtGox. It’s been in self-custody ever since. How do I prove it?’”

“They’ll be like, Mt-what?” she chuckled. “They will have no idea how to prove the source of funds. Obviously, they just want to see a financial institution statement.”

But Bitcoiners often have no such financial statements, and obtaining them could require the sale of significant amounts of bitcoin, triggering a tax event in many countries that could drastically increase the costs involved, deterring Bitcoiners from these CBI programs.

To make matters worse, the privacy risks faced by Bitcoiners are different from those in legacy finance. Bitcoin is not reversible, after all. Theft and extortion of bitcoin often leads to year long investigations that rarely yield results or recovered funds. The security of bitcoin value is thus best preserved at the current time by not being an obvious easy target in the first place, and that means preserving your privacy and minimizing the amount of people who know you have bitcoin at all or how much.

This is very different than the fiat system where having a few bankers or lawyers know your bank account balance as they fax it to each other in plain text is not great, but not a critical threat either. Transactions can generally be reversed and in a worst-case scenario, refunds can be printed out of thin air by their fraud risk departments to cover user loss.

Because of Bitcoin’s transparency, your Bitcoin wealth can be revealed to relative strangers, which can trigger people’s envy and, in the worst cases, even lead to cybersecurity threats or physical attacks in attempts to steal and extort funds.

To address these risks and the knowledge gap between Bitcoiners, the CBI industry, and the relevant government institutions, Plan B Passport built relationships with citizenship units: government officials in jurisdictions with CIB programs. Plan B also launched an innovative program that unlocked a more secure path to satisfy the proof of funds standards for Bitcoiners.

Such users would simply have to sign a message with the corresponding private keys to a Bitcoin public address, demonstrating in an off-chain, cryptographically provable way that they own the coins on that address. CheckMSG.org is an example of such technology. The cryptographic proof would then be reviewed and co-signed by a competent institutional partner, a US or Swiss firm, and a financial statement would be issued that Citizenship Units at the specific jurisdictions can work with.

“Originally, they were a little concerned about this whole thing,” she recalled about initial reactions to the program. “If we talk about four or five years ago, they would say, ‘Well, sell it into fiat and show it to us.’ Okay, whatever. But now, just like in the Sovereign Individual thesis—they realize, ‘There’s a lot of Bitcoiners who want passports, and we better serve them because that’s our money, that’s our bread.’”

The benefits of having a sophisticated technological approach in an industry that is otherwise very traditional in its tooling, differentiate CitizenX and Plan B Passport from their competitors. The merger could elevate the quality of CBI options available to Bitcoiners and empower Katie to open new markets and launch policy education initiatives in countries that might not know how to service this market.

“And honestly, that’s one of the motivations behind this acquisition. The whole sovereign individual movement, I feel like I had to really say no to quite a few opportunities that I knew could potentially result in accelerating this movement, simply because I was a sole founder, managing the processing department, managing the sales, right? All that stuff. And I felt like I just don’t have enough time and enough resources, enough talent to go and build out these other programs in the world that I know Bitcoiners would want to see,” Katie explained.

“So I had to pass on these opportunities. And through this acquisition, I think we get into the space, into the state where we can truly launch those new immigration initiatives and lobby for them in different jurisdictions, just so those small nations can get into the game, realize what they have to offer, realize what their market price is, and how they can benefit from launching a citizenship or residency by investment program, and I want to be there to help them do that,” she concluded.

This post Citizenship By Investment: The Emerging Market for State Services via Citizen X first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Juan Galt.

Bitcoin Magazine

Strategy Buys $1.42 Billion Worth of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Price Surges Above $95,000

The world’s largest corporate Bitcoin holder announced in a Form 8-K filing on Monday that it purchased 15,355 BTC between April 21 and April 27, 2025, at an average price of $92,737 per bitcoin. The acquisition was funded through proceeds from the company’s at-the-market (ATM) stock offerings, which raised $1.44 billion through the sale of common and preferred shares.

Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings are now worth more than $52 billion at current prices, with an average purchase price of $68,459 per Bitcoin. The company has accumulated approximately 2.64% of Bitcoin’s maximum supply of 21 million coins.

The company reported selling 4,020,000 shares of common stock and 435,069 shares of its 8.00% Series A perpetual strike preferred stock during the period.

The latest purchase comes as Bitcoin trades above $95,000, supported by strong institutional inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs and improving macro conditions. Strategy’s aggressive accumulation has coincided with the growing mainstream adoption of Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset.

According to the filing, Strategy has nearly exhausted its $21 billion common stock ATM program launched in October 2024, with only $128.7 million remaining available for issuance. The STRK preferred share program, established in March 2025, still has $20.92 billion available.

Bitcoin’s price has shown resilience above key psychological levels, trading at $95,304 at press time, up 1.59% over the past 24 hours. Bitcoin has benefited from several positive catalysts, including President Trump’s signals on reducing Chinese import tariffs and new SEC Chairman Paul Atkins’ pro-crypto stance.

Strategy’s continued Bitcoin purchases reflect growing institutional confidence in the asset class. The company has maintained its position as the largest public holder of Bitcoin, with its holdings now representing a significant portion of the total circulating supply.

This post Strategy Buys $1.42 Billion Worth of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Price Surges Above $95,000 first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Vivek Sen.