A Collaborative Global Bitcoin Strategy for the U.S. and China

Introduction

The rise of Bitcoin as a global digital asset presents both challenges and opportunities that transcend national borders. In recent years, the United States and China – the world’s two largest economies – have often approached cryptocurrency from opposing angles, fueling a rivalry in digital currency infrastructure . This report envisions an alternative path: a comprehensive global Bitcoin strategy that unites American and Chinese strengths. By collaborating across government and private sectors, both nations can harness Bitcoin and blockchain innovation for mutual benefit. Such a strategy would acknowledge current geopolitical tensions and regulatory differences, set short- and long-term goals (from financial stability to technological leadership), establish aligned regulatory frameworks, jointly manage environmental impacts, and ultimately seek a position of shared global market leadership. The tone of this vision is intentionally optimistic and forward-looking – a call for the U.S. and China to turn competition into cooperation for the sake of global financial innovation and stability.

Background: Two Giants in the Bitcoin Landscape

Historic Dominance and Divergent Approaches: For much of Bitcoin’s history, the U.S. and China have been the predominant players. By 2017, over 70% of Bitcoin’s mining capacity was located in China, leveraging inexpensive electricity and domestic hardware manufacturing . Simultaneously, Chinese exchanges and investors played a major role in crypto markets. The U.S., in turn, became a hub for blockchain startups, exchanges, and institutional investment. Together, the two countries accounted for an estimated 50–80% of global crypto mining for over a decade , illustrating their outsized influence in the Bitcoin ecosystem. However, their policy paths diverged sharply: Beijing began imposing strict regulations – banning ICOs and shutting exchanges in 2017, then outlawing Bitcoin mining and trading in 2021 to protect financial stability and meet climate goals . This aggressive crackdown drove many crypto businesses and miners out of China, ceding ground to other regions. The United States, by contrast, maintained an environment of legal ambiguity through the late 2010s and early 2020s, allowing a thriving crypto industry to take root even amid regulatory debates.

Shifting Balance of Power: China’s retreat created an opening that the U.S. quickly filled. When China banned mining in 2021, operations didn’t cease – they moved. By January 2022, the U.S. share of global Bitcoin mining skyrocketed from just 4.5% in 2020 to 37.8%, making North America the world’s largest Bitcoin mining hub . States like Texas and Wyoming welcomed miners with cheap energy and open arms . America’s deep financial markets and culture of innovation further reinforced this shift: for instance, the launch of regulated Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in 2024 attracted billions in institutional capital . By 2025, the U.S. has emerged as the dominant force in cryptocurrency – a title previously held by China . This dominance is evident not only in mining power but in trading volume (the U.S. accounts for roughly 25% of Bitcoin trading activity ) and entrepreneurial activity (an explosion of American crypto startups and patents).

China’s Evolving Stance: While Mainland China continues to prohibit most cryptocurrency activities, it has not abandoned the digital currency arena altogether. Instead, it has focused on state-led fintech innovations like the digital yuan (e-CNY) and blockchain infrastructure – a “blockchain, not crypto” strategy. Hong Kong, with Beijing’s approval, has recently positioned itself as a regulated crypto finance hub. In May 2025, Hong Kong passed landmark legislation to regulate stablecoins (digital assets pegged to fiat value), aligning with Beijing’s broader strategy to promote the e-CNY as an alternative to the U.S. dollar . These developments signal that China recognizes the value of blockchain technology and is cautiously re-engaging with crypto through controlled channels. The nation that once dominated Bitcoin mining still retains influence via its world-leading manufacturers of mining hardware. Notably, three Chinese companies – Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT – produce over 90% of global Bitcoin mining rigs, giving China continued leverage over Bitcoin’s infrastructure supply chain . These firms have even begun establishing manufacturing bases in the U.S. to navigate trade barriers , intertwining the two countries’ crypto industries despite geopolitical strains.

The Case for Cooperation: This backdrop of American ascendancy and Chinese recalibration underscores a key point: both countries remain indispensable to Bitcoin’s global network, albeit in different ways. The U.S. offers financial infrastructure, investment, and a spirit of open innovation; China contributes technological hardware expertise, massive markets, and strategic vision (as seen in its digital yuan rollout). Rather than persist in zero-sum competition – or worse, open conflict over crypto – there is an opportunity to craft a joint strategy that leverages each nation’s strengths. Such collaboration would aim to ensure financial stability, encourage groundbreaking blockchain innovation, assert technological leadership, and manage the Bitcoin market’s growth responsibly. Crucially, it would also address global challenges like regulatory fragmentation and environmental impact that neither country can solve alone. The sections below outline this comprehensive strategy in detail, balancing realism about differences with optimism about what coordinated leadership could achieve.

Geopolitical Tensions and the Need for a Joint Strategy

Any U.S.-China Bitcoin strategy must be grounded in real-world geopolitics. Current tensions between Washington and Beijing are high, marked by trade wars, technological “decoupling,” and competition for economic influence. These frictions have already affected the crypto sector: for example, tariff policies have disrupted supply chains for mining equipment, prompting Chinese rig manufacturers to set up shop in America to avoid import tariffs and security scrutiny . The U.S., wary of over-reliance on Chinese tech, has raised concerns that China’s dominance in mining hardware could become a “choke point” – if China were to restrict exports of rigs, it might disrupt Bitcoin’s network stability and harm U.S. miners and investors . Likewise, Chinese authorities worry that unregulated crypto flows could enable capital flight or undermine financial controls, exacerbating a longstanding mistrust of U.S.-led financial systems.

Despite these challenges, Bitcoin represents a neutral technological terrain where cooperation can be mutually beneficial. Both nations share some fundamental interests: preventing financial crises, stopping illicit finance, and ensuring no single actor maliciously destabilizes the global monetary order. They also face common external pressures. Other countries and blocs (the EU, G20, BRICS, etc.) are calling for clearer global crypto rules, and neither the U.S. nor China wants to be left out of setting those standards. Furthermore, Bitcoin’s decentralized nature means it cannot be contained by one country’s policy – unilateral actions often have spillover effects. China’s mining ban, for instance, reduced its domestic energy load but simply shifted carbon-intensive mining to other jurisdictions , doing little to curb global emissions. The United States’ evolving regulatory approach will likewise impact markets far beyond its borders. In short, a fragmented approach to Bitcoin governance risks financial instability, regulatory arbitrage, and environmental externalities that could harm both nations.

Aligning strategies does not mean erasing differences. It means finding common ground on key principles and goals despite divergent systems. As one policy analysis noted, it may be unrealistic for Washington and Beijing to adopt identical crypto regulations given their political and economic systems, but they can still coordinate on critical aspects for mutual gain . By recognizing Bitcoin as a shared strategic domain – much like climate change or global health – the U.S. and China can pursue a pragmatic partnership. This partnership would focus on areas where interests intersect: preventing misuse of Bitcoin by criminals and terrorists, stabilizing the global financial system, encouraging innovation under agreed safeguards, and managing the resource footprint of crypto mining. Success in these endeavors will require some level of U.S.-China cooperation, aligned through international frameworks or direct dialogue . Importantly, such collaboration could also serve a diplomatic purpose: it provides a platform for engagement and confidence-building in an era of otherwise heightened rivalry.

Public-Private Collaboration: Bridging Governments and Industry

Achieving a global Bitcoin strategy will demand close collaboration between government authorities and the private sector in both countries. The innovation driving the crypto revolution has largely come from the private sector – entrepreneurs, technologists, miners, and investors – while governments supply oversight and strategic direction. A U.S.-China partnership should leverage the strengths of both:

• Government-to-Government Coordination: The first step could be establishing a U.S.-China Digital Currency Task Force composed of regulators, central bank officials, and policymakers from both sides. This body would meet regularly to share information and develop mutual frameworks on Bitcoin. They could coordinate through neutral venues such as the G20 or Financial Stability Board, and through bilateral summits devoted to financial technology. A key focus might be joint measures against illicit finance: both nations want to combat money laundering and drug trafficking via crypto, and working together (for instance, by sharing intelligence on suspicious transactions) would make enforcement far more effective . The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) provides a ready-made forum for this, where the U.S. and China can push for stronger global standards on crypto KYC/AML without appearing to concede sovereignty . Additionally, regulatory agencies – such as the U.S. SEC/CFTC and China’s PBoC or securities commission – might hold technical exchanges to compare approaches. Even if their rules differ, understanding each other’s frameworks can help close regulatory gaps that criminals exploit. The goal would be a baseline of regulatory alignment: agreement on issues like anti-fraud measures, consumer protection, and the legal status of Bitcoin transactions, so that one country’s loopholes don’t undermine the other’s controls.
• Private Sector Partnerships: The innovation engine of Bitcoin spans continents, and many companies already operate across the U.S.-China divide. Encouraging joint ventures and partnerships can enhance trust and create win-win business models. For example, American and Chinese firms might collaborate on developing blockchain infrastructure for global payments or trade finance, marrying U.S. software expertise with Chinese hardware prowess. We already see hints of this: U.S. banking giants are exploring crypto offerings while Chinese fintech companies build blockchain platforms – interoperability between, say, a U.S. dollar stablecoin and Ant Group’s AntChain platform is on the horizon . In fact, with the U.S. now providing regulatory clarity for dollar-backed stablecoins through the new GENIUS Act (signed into law in 2025) and China investing in blockchain networks, their financial technologies may increasingly converge in global use-cases . Another area for cooperation is the Bitcoin mining supply chain. The reality is that Chinese companies still dominate mining rig manufacturing (over 90% of market share) , while U.S. companies lead in operating large-scale mines and public mining companies . Rather than view this interdependence as a vulnerability alone, both sides could formalize it into a more resilient partnership. Chinese manufacturers setting up assembly in the U.S. – as Bitmain and others are doing – can be encouraged and done transparently , ensuring the U.S. has secure hardware supply and China’s firms have stable markets. Public-private initiatives might include cross-investment in mining operations that use American energy and Chinese equipment, with shared profits and knowledge transfer. In the financial sector, joint research centers or startup incubators could be created, where U.S. and Chinese tech talent work together on Bitcoin scalability, cybersecurity, and use-case innovation (under agreed guidelines). Such projects would not only yield technological progress but also foster people-to-people connections between the two nations’ tech communities.
• Consultation and Inclusive Dialogue: It’s vital that any bilateral strategy draws on the insights of industry leaders, academia, and civil society. The U.S. and Chinese governments should organize roundtables with blockchain companies, miners, fintech entrepreneurs, and economists from both countries to solicit ideas and feedback. For instance, input from major crypto exchanges (which operate globally) can help shape compatible regulatory provisions in each country, so that compliance in one jurisdiction doesn’t preclude operating in the other. American firms can share best practices on regulatory compliance and security, while Chinese firms (many now based in Singapore, Hong Kong, or elsewhere due to the ban) can share lessons on large-scale deployment and hardware efficiency. Academia can contribute neutral research – joint U.S.-China university studies on blockchain (many exist already) can guide policymaking. By engaging stakeholders broadly, policymakers will be better informed and regulations more effective. Public-private partnership is especially crucial in a field as complex as Bitcoin; neither governments nor companies can achieve the objectives alone. This collaborative spirit mirrors successful models in other sectors (like space exploration or public health) and can inject momentum and optimism into the project.

In summary, bridging government oversight with private sector innovation will create a holistic strategy. The U.S. and China, working in concert, can align interests between regulators and entrepreneurs, ensuring that Bitcoin’s development is guided in a way that balances innovation with responsibility. When the public and private sectors of two superpowers row in the same direction, the ripple effects will be felt globally – inspiring confidence, accelerating progress, and demonstrating that cooperation is possible even in a competitive world.

Toward Regulatory Alignment and Mutual Frameworks

At the heart of a joint Bitcoin strategy lies the question of regulation: How can the U.S. and China create rules of the road that are compatible, if not identical? Although their political systems differ, a mutual framework for Bitcoin governance can be pursued through incremental alignment and trust-building measures:

• Harmonizing Key Definitions and Legal Treatment: One fundamental step is agreeing on how to classify Bitcoin. The U.S. has leaned toward treating Bitcoin as a commodity or property (taxed as such), while China has banned it as legal tender but could treat it as a virtual asset or digital property under certain pilot programs. A joint framework would see both countries recognize Bitcoin under a common category for regulatory purposes – for example, as a digital commodity. This doesn’t mean China must suddenly legalize Bitcoin trading nationwide; rather, it could acknowledge Bitcoin’s legitimacy in specific contexts (like cross-border trade settlement or approved exchanges in Hong Kong), while the U.S. continues integrating it into financial markets. By converging on a shared understanding, both governments make it easier for companies and investors to navigate rules across borders.
• Coordinated Exchange and Transaction Oversight: Given that cryptocurrency flows easily between jurisdictions, the U.S. and China (through Hong Kong or other proxies) should strive for compatible rules for exchanges and payment platforms. This includes KYC (Know-Your-Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering) standards that meet or exceed FATF’s guidelines. If an exchange is licensed in the U.S., Chinese regulators should have confidence that it meets rigorous standards, and vice versa. This might involve information-sharing agreements between regulatory bodies to flag illicit activities. As a Pacific Forum study suggests, both sides can agree on principles to ban and punish the illicit use of cryptocurrency, even if broader regulatory philosophies differ . For instance, the U.S. could enhance oversight of decentralized finance platforms (to curb anonymous illicit transactions), while China could allow regulated crypto usage under strict reporting – both aiming to close gaps that traffickers and money-launderers exploit . A tangible outcome could be a jointly developed “white list” of compliant crypto exchanges: platforms that meet stringent criteria in either country are allowed to operate (perhaps via a sandbox) in both. On the flip side, a “blacklist” of suspected illicit addresses or entities can be jointly maintained, bolstering enforcement through unified action.
• Mutual Frameworks for Mining and Nodes: Beyond financial regulation, Bitcoin’s infrastructure – mining nodes and networks – could benefit from a mutual governance framework. The two countries might set forth common guidelines on mining operations, focusing on transparency and security. For example, they could require large mining farms to register and disclose their energy sources and output. This information sharing could feed into a global registry that helps monitor the Bitcoin network’s health. Additionally, both could enforce export controls on dangerous dual-use aspects (ensuring mining hardware isn’t covertly modified for malicious purposes, etc.) in a coordinated way. By aligning here, the U.S. and China address each other’s concerns: the U.S. worries about backdoors or over-concentration of hashpower, China worries about uncontrolled growth – a mutual framework could cap systemic risks while keeping the network robust.
• Legal Cooperation on Crypto Crimes: A particularly promising area of regulatory cooperation is law enforcement. Cryptocrime is a borderless problem; hackers or fraudsters might be in one country targeting victims in another. The U.S. and China should establish direct lines of communication between agencies (such as the FBI/DOJ and China’s Ministry of Public Security) for crypto-related crimes. Joint investigations and extradition agreements for major cryptocurrency criminal cases (e.g. large-scale fraud, ransomware rings accepting Bitcoin) would send a strong message. Additionally, as suggested by experts, a third-party international organization could be created or tasked to oversee aspects of crypto regulation and facilitate U.S.-China collaboration . For instance, an independent “International Crypto Compliance Council” could include both American and Chinese representatives (along with others) to coordinate real-time responses to illicit cryptocurrency uses, enhancing trust through a neutral framework.
• Learning from Each Other’s Reforms: Notably, both countries are undergoing regulatory evolution. The U.S. in 2025 passed the GENIUS Act to establish its first federal rules for stablecoins, providing much-needed clarity to the industry . In July 2025, it also advanced the CLARITY Act to oversee crypto markets comprehensively . China, via Hong Kong, is introducing its own licensing regime for crypto exchanges and stablecoins . A joint strategy would encourage dialogue about these reforms to ensure they are not working at cross-purposes. For example, if U.S. law now requires stablecoin issuers to be fully reserved and audited , Chinese regulators could adopt similar assurances for any digital yuan-linked stable assets, making them interoperable. Conversely, the U.S. can learn from China’s emphasis on consumer protection and social stability in crypto oversight. By aligning regulatory timelines and sharing draft policies, each side can adjust and calibrate in a way that nudges their rules closer. This doesn’t mean one blueprint for both – rather, a mutual respect and calibration to avoid regulatory arbitrage and to pave the way for potential mutual recognition of certain compliant crypto activities.

In essence, the regulatory component of a U.S.-China Bitcoin strategy strives for a common language in governance. Just as global trade has norms (largely shaped by major powers collaborating), global crypto commerce can operate under aligned principles championed by Washington and Beijing. The benefit of regulatory alignment is twofold: it reduces friction for legitimate activities (making cross-border Bitcoin usage smoother and safer), and it tightens the net around bad actors (denying them havens or loopholes). Over time, this alignment could evolve into a more formal mutual framework or treaty on digital currencies – a kind of Bretton Woods for the crypto age – with the U.S. and China as co-architects. By planting the seeds of cooperation now, the two powers ensure they jointly write the rules of the future financial order, rather than let mistrust and fragmentation dictate outcomes.

Environmental Sustainability: A Joint Responsibility

One of the most pressing aspects of any Bitcoin strategy is addressing its environmental impact. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work mining is energy-intensive to a degree that has drawn global concern. Here again, the U.S. and China – as past and present mining giants – are uniquely positioned to lead collective solutions for sustainability.

Bitcoin mining operations require massive racks of specialized hardware and consume enormous amounts of electricity. This mining facility in Inner Mongolia, China (2017) illustrates the scale and energy intensity of proof-of-work mining rigs. Both the United States and China have hosted such large mines, prompting concerns about carbon emissions and local environmental impacts. In fact, the shifting geography of mining has highlighted how interdependent the countries are in environmental terms. When China banned domestic Bitcoin mining in 2021 due to its “disorderly” use of power disrupting carbon reduction goals , many miners relocated to the United States, which was quick to capitalize on available capacity . The result: from mid-2022 to mid-2023, the 34 largest U.S. Bitcoin mines consumed about 32.3 terawatt-hours of electricity – 33% more power than the entire city of Los Angeles – and about 85% of that electricity came from fossil fuels . The environmental burden simply jumped borders. Approximately 1.9 million Americans were exposed to heightened air pollution (PM2.5) due to emissions from power plants feeding these mines . The lesson is clear: unilateral actions won’t solve Bitcoin’s climate dilemma; coordination is required to ensure mining becomes cleaner globally rather than just shifting emissions around.

Green Mining Initiatives: As part of a joint strategy, the U.S. and China could launch a “Green Bitcoin Mining Initiative” that sets ambitious targets for reducing the carbon footprint of mining. This might involve:

• Setting Renewable Energy Targets: Both countries could require or incentivize miners to use a majority (say 50-70% to start, ramping up to 100% over time) renewable or clean energy. China, which has abundant hydro, solar, and wind capacity, could reopen the door for licensed mining farms in regions with excess renewable energy (for example, Sichuan’s surplus hydroelectric power during the wet season) under strict environmental conditions. The U.S., with its vast wind and solar farms (and even flared natural gas that can be repurposed for off-grid mining), can continue encouraging miners to set up where they can tap cleaner energy. Sharing data on the best practices – for instance, how some Texas miners work with grid operators to utilize renewable surpluses – can help Chinese provinces do the same.
• Technology Sharing for Efficiency: Both nations should invest jointly in R&D for more energy-efficient mining technologies. This includes developing next-generation ASIC chips that deliver higher hash power per watt, advanced cooling systems (like immersion cooling) to reduce electricity used for cooling, and exploring alternative consensus mechanisms or layer-2 solutions that ease the load on the main Bitcoin network. A U.S.-China research consortium on blockchain efficiency could be established, pooling top engineers and scientists (potentially from companies like Bitmain, Intel, Canaan, and leading universities). By co-developing greener tech, they can ensure any breakthrough benefits all and set industry standards.
• Environmental Standards and Audits: The U.S. and China can collaborate to create a Crypto Climate Accord (building on ideas from climate-focused coalitions) specifically for Bitcoin. Miners in both countries (and eventually globally) would be encouraged or mandated to disclose their energy mix and emissions, subject to independent audits. This transparency can be tied to incentives: for example, financial institutions in the U.S. and China could agree to only invest in or host mining companies that meet certain carbon-neutral criteria. If the two biggest players enforce this, it could effectively become a global norm, nudging miners everywhere to clean up or lose business.
• Joint Investment in Clean Energy Projects: Taking cooperation further, the U.S. and China could co-invest in renewable energy projects earmarked for powering blockchain operations. Consider a mega solar farm in a desert area or wind farm in a windy plain jointly funded by American and Chinese capital, dedicated to Bitcoin mining centers. Such projects would symbolize how Bitcoin can drive green infrastructure development. They also mesh with both countries’ climate pledges (the U.S. aiming for net-zero by 2050, China by 2060) by ensuring that even new tech industries align with emissions goals.

Mitigating Other Environmental Impacts: Beyond carbon emissions, Bitcoin mining has other ecological footprints – e-waste from discarded mining rigs, water usage for cooling, and land use for large facilities. A joint strategy would include addressing these: for instance, promoting recycling programs for mining hardware (perhaps U.S. and Chinese tech companies partnering on refurbishing and repurposing old rigs rather than scrapping them) and sharing techniques to reduce water usage in cooling (dry cooling technologies, etc.). Collaborative research could also explore the viability of alternative consensus models in the long term – while Bitcoin itself is unlikely to change from proof-of-work, side-chains or complementary systems might use proof-of-stake or other methods to take some transaction load off the main chain, thereby saving energy.

The benefits of collective action on Bitcoin’s environmental impact are tremendous. If the two biggest energy consumers in crypto coordinate, they can significantly bend the emissions curve of the entire Bitcoin network. They can also counter criticism that Bitcoin is an environmental menace by demonstrating a path to sustainability. This would protect Bitcoin’s reputation and integration into the global economy – a common interest for both. Additionally, working together on a climate-tech issue can spill over into broader climate cooperation, a sphere where U.S.-China partnership is deemed crucial for the planet’s future. Inspiringly, what starts as a joint effort to green Bitcoin could become a model for global cooperation on other tech-related environmental challenges. It shows that even fierce competitors can unite to preserve the commons we all share.

Short-Term Objectives (1–2 Year Horizon)

In the immediate term, the U.S. and China can pursue several concrete steps to kick-start this collaborative Bitcoin strategy. These short-term objectives focus on building trust, aligning basic policies, and demonstrating early wins:

1. Establish a Bilateral Crypto Working Group: Form a high-level working group with representatives from U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, SEC/CFTC, and Chinese PBoC, CBIRC, and regulatory commissions. This group will meet quarterly (virtually or in-person) to discuss Bitcoin market developments, share data, and coordinate oversight. Initial agenda: compare notes on regulatory plans, identify any conflicting approaches, and find quick areas of consensus (e.g. agreeing to both enforce FATF “Travel Rule” requirements for crypto transactions) .
2. Utilize Hong Kong as a Bridge: Encourage regulatory pilots in Hong Kong that involve both U.S. and Chinese participation. For example, Hong Kong’s new licensing regime for crypto exchanges could host a U.S.-China jointly vetted crypto exchange. American and mainland regulators could jointly observe its operations. This sandbox approach in a controlled environment builds confidence. If successful, it could pave the way for Mainland China to gradually allow more crypto activity under a regulated framework, and for the U.S. to see Chinese firms operating under high standards.
3. Joint Declaration on Illicit Crypto Activities: Issue a U.S.-China joint statement (perhaps at a G20 meeting) affirming a zero-tolerance policy for illicit uses of cryptocurrency. The statement would outline shared goals to crack down on money laundering, ransomware payments, terrorist financing and drug trade transactions involving Bitcoin. It would endorse collaboration through FATF and Interpol, signaling to the world that the two countries stand together on this critical security issue . As part of this, set up a secure communication channel between law enforcement for rapid coordination on crypto crime investigations.
4. Launch a US-China Blockchain Innovation Fund: Announce a bilateral fund or incubator program to support startups and research in blockchain technology (with an emphasis on projects that improve Bitcoin’s scalability, security, or sustainability). This fund, seeded by contributions from both governments or consortia of tech companies, could sponsor hackathons, grant programs, or academic exchanges. Tangible goal: Within 2 years, produce at least a few joint patents or open-source solutions (e.g. algorithms for better transaction throughput or energy-efficient mining methods) that are co-developed by U.S. and Chinese experts. Early successes here would be highly symbolic and motivational.
5. Align Stablecoin and CBDC Integration Strategies: In the short run, Bitcoin often interfaces with stablecoins and digital fiat. With the U.S. now providing clarity for USD stablecoins (via the GENIUS Act of 2025) , and China advancing the digital yuan (e-CNY), both sides should form a sub-working group to ensure these systems can coexist. A near-term objective might be a pilot where a U.S. dollar stablecoin and the e-CNY are used in a cross-border transaction alongside Bitcoin as the conduit. For instance, an American exporter could convert payment into a Chinese importer’s digital yuan via Bitcoin seamlessly. This kind of experiment, done under regulatory supervision, tests technical and legal interoperability. It also lays groundwork for Bitcoin’s role as a neutral settlement layer between national digital currencies.
6. Environmental Task Force & Mining Standards: Immediately create a joint task force on sustainable crypto mining. Within a year, have this task force issue a set of best practices and voluntary standards for mining operations in both countries (e.g. a guideline that all new mining projects should aim for at least 50% renewable power). Start a data-sharing initiative on energy usage: for example, exchange information on the largest mining facilities’ energy mix and efficiency. A short-term win could be coordinating inspections or audits of major mining farms in each country, ensuring they meet environmental and safety standards, and publicly releasing a report on the progress of greening Bitcoin mining.
7. Financial Stability Monitoring: The U.S. Federal Reserve and China’s central bank (PBoC) should collaborate on monitoring potential systemic risks arising from crypto markets. In the next two years, they could jointly develop a risk dashboard that tracks metrics like Bitcoin’s market capitalization, leverage in crypto markets, linkages between crypto and traditional finance, etc. Sharing this info and analysis will help both sides preempt any brewing crisis (for instance, a collapse of a major crypto institution or sudden crash in Bitcoin’s price that could have knock-on effects). By doing this together, they also reassure global markets that the two largest economies are watching and prepared to act in case of instability.

Each of these short-term objectives is actionable and sets the stage for deeper cooperation. Achieving even a few of them will build momentum and trust. Moreover, early collaborations – whether a joint statement, a pilot project, or a co-authored policy report – generate goodwill and demonstrate to skeptics that a U.S.-China partnership on Bitcoin can deliver results. The tone of these efforts should be pragmatic and confidence-building, showing that while strategic competition remains in other domains, here is a space where working together yields immediate, tangible benefits.

Long-Term Vision (5–10 Year Horizon)

Looking further ahead, an effective U.S.-China Bitcoin strategy would evolve into an ambitious long-term partnership with transformative goals. In the span of 5 to 10 years, the following visions could be realized if collaboration endures:

1. Financial Stability and Integration: Bitcoin and other digital assets would be safely integrated into the global financial system under the stewardship of the U.S. and China. This could mean Bitcoin accepted as a legitimate reserve asset or collateral class in multiple countries, with both the Federal Reserve and PBoC having frameworks to accommodate crypto assets in their financial stability toolkits. The joint monitoring and regulatory alignment achieved in earlier years would by now have minimized risks like excessive leverage or fraud. In crises, the U.S. and China could even coordinate policy responses (analogous to coordinated central bank actions in traditional finance), such as temporary liquidity provision or market interventions to prevent cascade failures. Essentially, Bitcoin would exist in a much less volatile, more mature state, having been guided through its tumultuous early years by cooperative oversight.

2. Co-Leadership in Blockchain Innovation: By 2030, the U.S. and China would stand as dual leaders in blockchain technology, having jointly set many of the standards that the rest of the world follows. Through combined R&D efforts, they could unveil breakthroughs such as quantum-resistant cryptographic algorithms for Bitcoin, ensuring the network’s security against next-generation computing threats. They might also lead in developing robust Layer-2 scaling solutions that make Bitcoin transactions faster and cheaper at scale, enabling it to be used in everyday commerce globally. Technologically, the two nations would have spurred a wave of innovation – think advanced smart contract platforms interoperable with Bitcoin, decentralized finance systems that comply with international regulations, and new applications for blockchain in supply chains and IoT, fostered by their collaborative efforts. The world’s top universities and tech companies from both countries might routinely exchange talent, co-publish research, and co-host major conferences – making the U.S.-China axis the heartbeat of blockchain progress.

3. A Unified Regulatory Framework (Global Standard): In the long term, one could envision a mutually recognized regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies that has been adopted by many nations, born out of the initial U.S.-China cooperation. This might take the form of a treaty or international convention on digital assets that the U.S. and China spearhead. Such a framework would harmonize tax treatment, anti-money laundering measures, and cross-border transaction rules for Bitcoin and beyond. If the U.S. and China agree on something, chances are other countries would align as well, leading to a far less fragmented regulatory landscape globally. This would greatly reduce uncertainty for users and businesses. A person or company could transact with Bitcoin across borders knowing the rules are consistent, much as international banking works today under common standards. The U.S. and China would earn respect as standard-setters, preserving influence in the evolving financial order.

4. Sustainable Bitcoin Ecosystem: A decade out, thanks to joint initiatives, Bitcoin mining could become predominantly sustainable. Perhaps the U.S. and China meet a milestone where, say, 80-90% of Bitcoin’s global mining energy comes from renewable or non-carbon-emitting sources. Emissions per transaction might have fallen dramatically, and innovations like waste-heat recycling from mining farms could be widespread (some of those innovations possibly co-developed early on). Both countries might reach their climate goals in part because they tamed a potential emitter in Bitcoin and turned it into a driver for renewable investment. They could even export this model: helping other countries set up green mining facilities and sharing technology, which not only helps climate efforts but deepens their diplomatic ties. In this vision, Bitcoin would transform from an environmental concern to an exemplar of green digital infrastructure.

5. Joint Market Dominance with Global Benefits: While “dominance” can sound self-serving, here it implies that together the U.S. and China maintain a guiding hand on the rudder of the global crypto market. They might collectively hold significant (though not majority) Bitcoin reserves as part of national reserves or sovereign wealth strategies, using those holdings to stabilize the market if needed (much like large economies manage gold or currency reserves). Their companies and financial institutions would likely run the world’s major crypto exchanges, mining pools, and blockchain platforms – meaning best practices and compliance are the norm, given those entities operate under U.S./China regulatory supervision. Importantly, this joint dominance would prevent any single country or rogue actor from manipulating the Bitcoin market. With two major powers as stewards, the decentralization ethos of Bitcoin is actually protected against coercion – neither can unilaterally control it, and both have a vested interest in preventing the other (or anyone else) from doing so. The global market thus remains free, but not lawless – a balanced environment that encourages growth and investment from all corners of the world, inspired by the stability afforded by U.S.-China cooperation.

6. Enhanced Global Trust and Collaboration: Zooming out, a less tangible but profound long-term outcome could be improved U.S.-China relations and a template for tackling other global issues. By working together on Bitcoin and fintech, the two nations build trust and a habit of cooperation. This can spill into other areas (climate change, AI governance, public health) as they realize the benefits of collaboration. In the narrative of history, one might see the joint Bitcoin strategy as the starting point of a new era of constructive great-power relations, where competition did not vanish but was channeled into competitive collaboration – racing to achieve breakthroughs but sharing the fruits for global good. It’s an inspiring possibility: two leading powers setting aside differences to co-pilot the journey into the digital financial future, bringing the world along rather than splitting it into rival camps.

Achieving these long-term visions will not be easy, but they are achievable if both nations commit to the journey. The timeline may see ups and downs – changes in administration, economic cycles, maybe even Bitcoin’s own evolution – but the destination remains a world where digital assets are a source of stability and innovation, not conflict. The U.S. and China, as co-authors of that chapter, would cement their legacy as visionary leaders of the 21st-century global economy.

Benefits of a US-China Joint Bitcoin Strategy

Embracing a collaborative strategy on Bitcoin and blockchain would yield numerous benefits, not only for the United States and China but for the world at large. Below are key advantages of this joint approach:

• Global Financial Stability: By coordinating policies and monitoring, the U.S. and China can greatly reduce the likelihood of disruptive swings or crises in the crypto market. Collaborative oversight means they can preempt bubble-bust cycles or contagion effects that might originate in unregulated corners. The result is a more stable global financial system, where Bitcoin and other digital assets augment rather than threaten economic stability. Markets would take comfort knowing the two largest economies are jointly backstopping and guiding this new asset class.
• Reduced Illicit Activity: A united front makes it far harder for bad actors to exploit arbitrage between jurisdictions. When Washington and Beijing both enforce stringent anti-money-laundering standards and share intelligence, criminals find fewer havens to park illicit gains. Global efforts against crypto-based crime become much more effective . This improves security in both countries (e.g. curbing drug trade fentanyl revenues or ransomware attacks) and worldwide. Legitimate users benefit as the overall ecosystem becomes safer and more trusted.
• Technological and Economic Innovation: Joint leadership in Bitcoin and blockchain could spark a golden age of innovation. With two tech powerhouses pooling knowledge, breakthroughs will come faster – from fintech applications that improve financial inclusion to new industries around decentralized technology. Both countries’ private sectors would profit: think of increased investment, new startups, and job creation in everything from crypto fintech to green energy. As U.S. and Chinese companies partner, they’ll unlock synergies (combining Silicon Valley creativity with Shenzhen’s manufacturing excellence, for instance) that drive cutting-edge products and services. The inspirational effect on young innovators in both nations – seeing cooperation instead of conflict – could unleash even more creativity.
• Mutual Technological Leadership: Rather than one nation eclipsing the other, a joint strategy allows both to share the mantle of global tech leadership. The U.S. and China each bring unique strengths; together they can set standards in blockchain tech that reflect democratic openness and efficient state-driven scaling in harmony. This co-leadership also means neither has to fear being left behind – they are partners at the forefront, which can reduce strategic anxieties. It’s motivational for both sides to know they’re driving progress together, not locked in a zero-sum race.
• Environmental Gains: Collaborative environmental action on Bitcoin will contribute to broader climate goals. By turning Bitcoin mining into a cleaner industry, the U.S. and China make meaningful progress toward emissions targets. They also show the world that economic development and environmental responsibility can go hand-in-hand, boosting their credibility in international climate negotiations. Additionally, the push for renewable energy and efficiency spurred by this strategy will spill over – improving grids, lowering clean tech costs, and benefiting other sectors. It’s a planet-positive outcome: a greener crypto sector and accelerated clean energy innovation.
• Investor and Market Confidence: A harmonized U.S.-China approach would likely make global investors more comfortable with Bitcoin. Regulatory clarity and cooperation reduce the fear of sudden adverse laws or bans. Institutional investors – pensions, banks, fintech firms – would be more willing to engage, bringing in capital under prudent oversight. Market confidence would also rise as Bitcoin becomes viewed as a legitimatized asset class with the blessing of major governments. Over time, this could contribute to lower volatility and deeper liquidity, making Bitcoin a more reliable store of value or medium of exchange. For the average consumer and business, it means more opportunities to safely use Bitcoin and blockchain-based services in daily life, driving financial inclusion and economic empowerment.
• Strengthened Bilateral Relations: While finance is the focus, one cannot overlook the diplomatic benefit. Working together on such a high-profile project can improve U.S.-China relations at a human and institutional level. Officials who regularly communicate build understanding. Successful outcomes create goodwill that can spill into other areas of contention, softening stances and opening doors for dialogue elsewhere. A joint Bitcoin strategy could become a shining example of positive diplomacy, demonstrating that even the toughest rivals can find common cause. This is inspiring and reassuring to the international community, reducing the risk of great-power conflict in general.
• Setting a Global Example: When two leading nations collaborate, it sets an example for others. A U.S.-China Bitcoin strategy could become the foundation for global frameworks that include other countries (much like how initial U.S.-Soviet arms control paved the way for wider treaties). It will encourage other nations to align with the standards set, fostering a more unified global approach to digital assets. Smaller countries can piggyback on the stable environment created, leveraging Bitcoin for development without fearing regulatory whiplash or exploitation by larger actors. In essence, the benefits radiate outward: the whole world gets a more orderly, innovative, and inclusive financial ecosystem.

These benefits highlight why this strategy is worth pursuing, even amid challenges. They paint a picture of a future where Bitcoin is not a flashpoint of U.S.-China rivalry, but a pillar of joint achievement, powering progress and prosperity on a global scale. It’s a future in which cooperation yields dividends far exceeding what either nation could accomplish alone.

Challenges and Risks

No comprehensive strategy is without obstacles. Recognizing the potential challenges and risks of a U.S.-China Bitcoin collaboration is crucial to addressing them proactively:

• Political and Ideological Differences: The U.S. and China have fundamentally different political systems and ideologies, which translate into divergent views on financial governance and personal freedoms. The U.S. approach emphasizes free-market innovation and a relatively hands-off government (with regulation to protect markets and consumers), whereas China prioritizes state control and risk prevention, even at the cost of curbing private crypto use. Bridging this gap to find workable compromises will be difficult. There may be domestic backlash in each country: U.S. lawmakers wary of “going soft” on a Communist government, and Chinese officials wary of Western influence through financial channels. Maintaining cooperation will require careful diplomacy, emphasizing mutual respect and sovereignty even as common ground is pursued.
• Trust and Verification: Decades of strategic mistrust won’t vanish overnight. Each side may suspect the other of using Bitcoin collaboration to gain hidden advantages. The U.S. might fear that sharing technology (like blockchain analytics tools or chip designs) could aid China’s surveillance state or military, while China might fear that an open crypto system is a Trojan horse for U.S. financial dominance or a tool to destabilize capital controls. To mitigate this, transparency and reciprocity must be baked into agreements – for example, using third-party audits (perhaps via international institutions) to verify that joint initiatives are used for agreed purposes. Building trust will take time and likely some small successful steps (as outlined in short-term objectives) to prove intentions.
• Regulatory Pace and Enforcement: Aligning regulations is one thing; enforcing them similarly is another. The U.S. has a complex legal system with potential court challenges (a sudden change of administration or a court ruling could alter crypto policy direction), whereas China’s centralized power can implement decisions swiftly but opaquely. There’s a risk that even after aligning on paper, the real-world enforcement might differ – for instance, China could crack down harder on an activity while the U.S. remains lenient, causing friction or arbitrage. To handle this, continuous communication is needed to calibrate responses and perhaps an agreement to give notice before major enforcement actions that could affect the other (e.g., if China were to outlaw something new, forewarn the U.S. so it can prepare, and vice versa).
• Domestic Changes and Leadership Transitions: The strategy’s success depends on sustained political will. Changes in leadership or policy priorities could disrupt it. In the U.S., elections every four years mean a cooperative approach could be reversed by a new administration with a different outlook. In China, while leadership is more continuous, priorities can shift (for example, a financial scare could lead to a clampdown irrespective of agreements). We’ve already seen how the U.S. 2024 election shifted crypto policy (with a pro-crypto stance boosting markets) ; future elections could swing the pendulum. There’s also the possibility of geopolitical crises (Taiwan tensions, trade wars, etc.) derailing good faith in the crypto domain. The strategy must be resilient to such shocks – possibly by institutionalizing it so that even if political winds change, the established channels (like the working group, or international commitments made) keep momentum. It might help to keep the initiative somewhat insulated from broader politics by framing it as a technical/financial stability effort.
• Bitcoin’s Decentralized Nature: Ironically, the very thing that makes Bitcoin attractive – its decentralization – means neither the U.S. nor China can “control” it fully. There is an inherent risk in tying up national strategies with something so global and leaderless: unexpected developments (like a new consensus change proposed by the community, or a major security incident) could occur that are outside either government’s direct control. For example, if the Bitcoin community decided to hard-fork or if a serious bug was found, it could throw regulatory assumptions into disarray. The two nations must remain flexible and avoid the hubris of thinking they can dictate Bitcoin’s evolution unilaterally. Instead, their strategy should be about influence and guidance while respecting that Bitcoin’s governance also lies with miners, developers, and users worldwide. This decentralized decision-making can be frustrating for governments and is a potential source of conflict if, say, one country’s interests align with a change in the protocol and the other’s do not.
• Global Perceptions and Third-Party Reactions: A U.S.-China duopoly in shaping crypto might make other countries uneasy. Allies or regional powers could resist if they feel excluded or disadvantaged by standards set by the two giants. The European Union, India, Russia, and others each have their own crypto visions, and they might not automatically endorse a U.S.-China framework. Some could even increase their efforts to create alternate systems (for instance, a European regulatory regime that diverges). Thus, the strategy needs a global inclusivity element – perhaps after initial U.S.-China alignment, they actively bring others into the fold (multilateral approach). Managing international diplomacy around this will be necessary to prevent a perception that the two superpowers are carving up the crypto world for themselves. Furthermore, if one country gains visibly more from the cooperation (e.g., U.S. firms profit more or China’s state gets more control), domestic critics in the other country might call it a loss of advantage, undermining support.
• Unforeseen Technological Risks: The Bitcoin landscape in 5-10 years might be quite different. There’s the risk of quantum computers that could crack Bitcoin’s encryption, or perhaps a new cryptocurrency could displace Bitcoin’s prominence. If either happens, the strategy would need quick adaptation – something large bureaucracies are not always good at. The partnership should be adaptable to cover digital currencies and blockchain cooperation broadly, not strictly one cryptocurrency. That way, if technology shifts (say, Bitcoin’s role diminishes and something else rises), the cooperative mechanisms and goodwill can pivot accordingly.
• Economic Competition: Even while cooperating, the U.S. and China will continue to compete economically. If Bitcoin and blockchain become as revolutionary as the internet, there will be intense competition over who reaps the economic rewards – in jobs, tax revenue, global market share of industries, etc. A challenge will be preventing healthy competition from turning into hostile sabotage. For instance, if Chinese companies start outperforming U.S. ones (or vice versa) in a certain crypto sector, there could be pressure to revert to protectionism or undercut the other’s progress. Constant dialogue and fair rules (like intellectual property protections, market access agreements for each other’s companies) will be needed to ensure competition doesn’t break the cooperative spirit.

Acknowledging these challenges is not to suggest the endeavor is doomed – rather, it highlights that vigilance, flexibility, and sustained commitment are required. Both sides will have to continuously navigate these issues, adjusting strategy as needed. Importantly, many of these risks (technological change, criminal misuse, global fragmentation) exist regardless; tackling them together is arguably easier than doing so apart. The fact that challenges exist simply underscores the need for skillful diplomacy and robust mechanisms in the strategy. And overcoming these challenges, step by step, will make the eventual success all the more rewarding.

Conclusion: A Vision for Global Financial Leadership

In an era often defined by competition and division, a collaborative U.S.-China Bitcoin strategy offers a hopeful alternative – a vision of partnership in shaping the future of finance. By coming together to co-manage the opportunities and risks of Bitcoin, the United States and China can demonstrate unprecedented leadership, not by dominating one another, but by uplifting the global system as co-stewards. This comprehensive strategy we’ve outlined is bold and ambitious: it asks two rival powers to trust and innovate together. Yet, the very scope of this vision is what makes it inspirational. It shows that the toughest challenges of the 21st century – from regulating borderless technologies to combating climate change – can be met only through unity of purpose among nations.

Imagine a world a decade from now: Bitcoin and blockchain technologies have matured under the careful guidance of common U.S.-China frameworks. Investors and entrepreneurs operate in a predictable global environment, unleashing waves of innovation that create prosperity from Silicon Valley to Shanghai. Consumers everywhere enjoy more accessible and efficient financial services, as cross-border payments and remittances become instant and low-cost, powered by agreed-upon digital currency standards. Illicit actors find it increasingly difficult to abuse the financial system, thanks to seamless law enforcement cooperation and smart regulation . And the environment breathes a little easier because two superpowers decided to hold Bitcoin mining to the highest green standards, catalyzing clean energy advancements along the way.

Such a future isn’t utopian fantasy – it is attainable if vision is coupled with will. The journey will demand perseverance. There will be setbacks and skeptics. But the story of human progress is written by those who dare to collaborate in the face of adversity. The United States and China, by engaging in this joint strategy, would send a powerful message: that globalization and technological revolution need not be a zero-sum game, but can be a shared endeavour for the common good.

In practical terms, the road starts with dialogue and small agreements, building into larger accords and institutions. Success will breed success; each milestone achieved (a joint announcement here, a pilot project there) will strengthen the relationship and silence doubters. Over time, what began as a pragmatic arrangement to handle Bitcoin could evolve into a deeper economic partnership. The optimism and goodwill generated might even help defuse broader geopolitical tensions, as cooperation becomes as much a habit as competition.

For the world, the benefits of a U.S.-China alignment on such a critical new domain are immense. It means faster innovation, prudent oversight, and inclusive growth. It also sets the tone that even as nations compete, they can find creative ways to cooperate for humanity’s advancement. This can inspire collaborative approaches to other global tech issues – from artificial intelligence to cybersecurity – forging a more interconnected and peaceful international community.

In closing, a comprehensive global Bitcoin strategy jointly pursued by the United States and China is more than a financial or technological plan; it is a symbol of possibility. It proves that we can shape globalization to work for everyone, guided by foresight and unity. Let this strategy be a beacon – one that transforms a source of discord into a platform for partnership, and in doing so, lights the way to a more stable, innovative, and optimistic global future.

Sources:

• Chen, Yingfan & Chen, Dingding. “Who Will Rule Crypto? The China-US Battle for Global Financial Leadership.” The Diplomat, July 22, 2025 .
• Shen, Samuel & Ranganathan, Vidya. “Dominant Chinese makers of bitcoin mining machines set up US production to beat tariffs.” Reuters, June 18, 2025 .
• Nature Communications. “The environmental burden of the United States’ bitcoin mining boom.” (Guidi et al., 2025) .
• Ober, Kayly. “Where Cryptocurrency, Water and Conflict Collide.” United States Institute of Peace, Mar 16, 2023 .
• Times of India – Business. “Bitcoin hits $100,000-mark: How China lost crypto race to US and Trump.” Dec 5, 2024 .
• Gan, Claire. “PacNet #85 – How US-China cooperation can combat cryptocurrency in drug trafficking.” Pacific Forum, Nov 8, 2024 .
• Carlisle, David. “US Crypto Week delivers as GENIUS Act becomes law, CLARITY Act moves to Senate.” Elliptic Blog, July 2025 .
• Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance / Statista – as cited in Pacific Forum: U.S. accounted for ~25% of Bitcoin trading volume (2021) .
• Additional reporting from CoinDesk/CNBC on regulatory developments and FATF guidelines for cryptocurrency AML standards . (These reinforce points on global standards and cooperation.)