Allegations that roughly $40 million was siphoned from US government-linked seizure wallets are placing new strain on Washington’s plan to deal with seized bitcoin as a long-term reserve asset.
What’s being alleged
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT alleged over the weekend that greater than $40 million in property moved out of wallets tied to US seizure operations.
He linked the exercise to John Daghita, often known as “Licks,” and stated the path emerged after a Telegram dispute the place an individual recognized as “Lick” screen-shared an Exodus pockets and moved massive sums in actual time.
ZachXBT stated the addresses hook up with greater than $90 million in suspected illicit flows, together with about $24.9 million that moved from a US-controlled pockets in March 2024.
Why it issues for a $28B bitcoin stockpile
The reported loss is small in contrast with the roughly $28 billion in bitcoin the US is extensively believed to manage, however it challenges the credibility of a “digital Fort Knox” posture.
If custody controls may be bypassed by contractor entry or insider threat, the priority turns into course of reliability throughout the total custody chain moderately than a one-off incident.
This comes after a previous federal custody scare in October 2024, when a pockets linked to Bitfinex hack proceeds was drained for about $20 million, with most funds later recovered.
Contractor and custody fragmentation threat
A March 2025 GAO determination confirmed the US Marshals Service awarded Command Companies & Help (CMDSS) a contract to handle “Class 2–4 cryptocurrencies,” which the GAO described as much less fashionable property requiring specialised dealing with.
The White Home has directed Treasury to manage custodial accounts the place bitcoin “shall not be bought,” shifting the federal government’s position from auctioning seized cash to holding them.
Crypto analyst Murtuza Service provider stated:
“If criminals consider seized funds may be siphoned from authorities wallets, they might deal with forfeiture as a brief inconvenience, not an endpoint, particularly if laundering routes exist by exchanges and cross-chain hops.”