National Government Bitcoin Holdings
Top Government Holders: Several national governments have emerged as significant Bitcoin holders, mostly through seizures or strategic acquisitions. The United States is the single largest government BTC holder, with roughly 198,000 BTC in its possession . This sizeable reserve (worth about $18–23 billion depending on price) comes largely from law enforcement seizures (e.g. Silk Road and other forfeitures) that the U.S. has consolidated into a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve instead of auctioning off . China is a close second with approximately 190,000–194,000 BTC ( ~$17–18 billion) , mainly stemming from the 2019 PlusToken Ponzi scheme crackdown. China’s holdings have been handled quietly at the provincial level with no official policy on retention, though reports indicate the government was weighing how to manage this ~$50 billion crypto trove by 2023 .
Other countries with known BTC reserves include the United Kingdom (~61,000 BTC, $5–7 billion), acquired via law enforcement seizures , and the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan (8,600 BTC, ~$0.8–1.0 billion) which it accumulated through sustainable mining operations using hydroelectric power . El Salvador – the first nation to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender – has been actively buying; it holds about 7,500 BTC (≈$660–$700 million) as of late 2025 after steadily purchasing 1 BTC per day and occasional larger “dip buys” . Smaller holdings are held by countries like Finland (~90 BTC from crime seizures) and Georgia (~66 BTC), which have mostly been sold off . Ukraine received substantial Bitcoin donations (totaling hundreds of BTC) during its 2022–2023 conflict, but those were largely liquidated to fund war efforts rather than held long-term .
<div align=”center”>
Table 1: Largest National Government Bitcoin Reserves (Estimated)
Government Estimated BTC Held Est. Value (USD) Source/Notes
United States ~198,000 BTC ~$18–19 billion Seized & now held in Strategic Reserve
China ~194,000 BTC ~$17–18 billion Seized from PlusToken scheme
United Kingdom ~61,000 BTC ~$5.6 billion Seized from criminal cases
Bhutan ~8,600 BTC ~$0.8 billion Mined via hydropower (sovereign fund)
El Salvador ~7,500 BTC ~$0.66 billion Actively purchased for treasury
North Korea (est.) ~13,500 BTC ~$1.5 billion Hacked crypto funds, unofficial
</div>
Table 1: Top national government Bitcoin holdings. The U.S. and China lead by a wide margin, mainly due to law enforcement seizures rather than intentional investment . Other nations like Bhutan and El Salvador have proactively accumulated Bitcoin (through mining or purchases), while countries such as the U.K. hold BTC from crime confiscations. (North Korea’s holding is an analyst estimate of funds from cyber-heists, as the regime is believed to stockpile crypto to fund its operations .) In total, governments worldwide are estimated to hold on the order of 500,000+ BTC, which is about 2–3% of Bitcoin’s max supply . Notably, policies vary widely: some governments (e.g. Germany) chose to sell all seized BTC (Germany sold ~46,000 BTC in 2024 to cover budgets ), whereas others (U.S., El Salvador, Bhutan) are now retaining or adding to their Bitcoin reserves as a strategic asset.
Corporate and Institutional Bitcoin Holdings
Beyond nation-states, private institutions and corporations have amassed significant Bitcoin treasuries. Leading the pack is MicroStrategy Inc., a business intelligence company turned Bitcoin champion. As of January 2026, MicroStrategy (renamed “Strategy” in some reports) holds approximately 673,000 – 690,000 BTC on its balance sheet – by far the largest corporate holding (over 3% of all BTC). This staggering hoard (worth ~$60+ billion at recent prices) is the result of a bold treasury strategy: the firm has continually raised capital to buy BTC since 2020, with CEO Michael Saylor viewing Bitcoin as a superior long-term store of value. (For context, MicroStrategy’s holdings jumped from ~450k BTC in Jan 2025 to ~673k BTC by Jan 2026 after a series of large purchases .) No other public company comes close to this level – MicroStrategy’s bet essentially makes it a de facto Bitcoin holding company .
Other major corporate holders include crypto mining firms and fintech companies. For example, Marathon Digital Holdings (a Bitcoin mining company) holds about 52,800 BTC on its books , preferring to hodl a portion of mined coins. Tesla, Inc. famously bought $1.5B in Bitcoin in early 2021; after some sales, Tesla still retains roughly 10,500–11,500 BTC (worth ~$1 billion) in its treasury . Crypto-native firms also appear: exchange Coinbase holds around 14,500 BTC as corporate reserves , and Galaxy Digital (Mike Novogratz’s investment firm) holds over 17,000 BTC . A number of publicly traded miners (like Riot Platforms with ~19,300 BTC and Hut 8 with ~10,300 BTC ) and fintech companies (e.g. Jack Dorsey’s Block, Inc. with ~8,584 BTC ) have also accumulated sizable stacks. In total, the aggregate holdings of public companies now exceed 1 million BTC – roughly 5% of the total supply – reflecting a wave of institutional adoption .
Meanwhile, privately held companies and institutional funds add even more to the tally. For instance, Block.one, a blockchain software firm, reportedly holds 140,000 BTC (stemming from proceeds of its 2018 ICO) . Tether Holdings (issuer of the USDT stablecoin) has disclosed significant Bitcoin reserves as well – on the order of 90,000+ BTC by 2025 – as part of its asset backing. Additionally, the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) and newly launched Bitcoin exchange-traded funds collectively custody enormous amounts on behalf of investors. Over 1.5 million BTC (≈7% of supply) sits in Bitcoin funds and ETFs – for example, the BlackRock iShares Bitcoin Trust alone holds ~788,000 BTC as of late 2025 . While these fund holdings are not corporate treasuries, they underscore how much Bitcoin exposure has been absorbed by institutional investment vehicles.
<div align=”center”>
Table 2: Largest Corporate Bitcoin Holders (Public Companies)
Company / Institution BTC Holdings Est. Value (USD) Source/Notes
MicroStrategy Inc. (US) ~673,000–690,000 BTC ~$60–63 billion Aggressively accumulated since 2020
Marathon Digital (US) ~52,850 BTC ~$4.8 billion Holds mined BTC (public miner)
Coinbase, Inc. (US) ~14,500 BTC ~$1.3 billion Crypto exchange treasury holding
Tesla, Inc. (US) ~11,500 BTC ~$1.0 billion First Fortune 500 to buy BTC
Galaxy Digital (US/Canada) ~17,100 BTC ~$1.5 billion Crypto investment firm
</div>
Table 2: Top corporate Bitcoin holdings among publicly-listed companies. MicroStrategy’s huge stash dwarfs all others – it now controls over three times the BTC of the next-largest holder . Other notable holders are a mix of Bitcoin miners (e.g. Marathon), exchanges (Coinbase), fintech/payment companies (Block, not shown, holds ~8.6k BTC ), and tech visionaries (Tesla). Combined, public and private companies hold ~1.4 million BTC, indicating that ~6–7% of Bitcoin’s supply is in corporate or institutional treasuries . This trend – often termed the “Bitcoin Treasury” movement – highlights growing corporate acceptance of Bitcoin as a reserve asset (for diversification, inflation hedging, or strategic investment).
Cities and Municipalities with Bitcoin Initiatives
At the city and municipal level, direct Bitcoin holdings are relatively modest, but some forward-thinking local governments have begun experimenting with BTC as part of their finances or development strategy:
• Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Rio announced plans to allocate 1% of the city’s treasury reserves to Bitcoin and crypto in order to become a global “crypto hub” . This initiative, unveiled by Rio’s mayor in 2022 and reaffirmed in 2023, is aimed at modernizing the city’s financial image and hedging against inflation. By investing a portion of reserves in BTC, Rio’s leadership hopes to emulate crypto-friendly locales like Miami and Zug, while reducing public skepticism of cryptocurrency through government endorsement . The city has also moved to accept Bitcoin for tax payments (e.g. allowing real estate taxes to be paid in BTC from 2023) and even discussed issuing its own token (“Crypto Rio”) .
• Roswell, New Mexico (USA): In 2024, Roswell became the first U.S. city to put Bitcoin on its balance sheet – albeit in a small way – by accepting a donation of roughly $3,000 in BTC (around 0.2 BTC at the time) . This donation-funded holding was largely symbolic, but it established Roswell’s city government as an early adopter. The Bitcoin is kept in the city treasury (in a secure wallet) as a pilot demonstration, making Roswell a pioneer among municipalities in holding crypto assets.
• Vancouver, Canada: The city of Vancouver has explored becoming a “bitcoin-friendly city” and considered proposals to add Bitcoin to its municipal investment portfolio as an inflation hedge . While Vancouver had not yet purchased BTC for its reserves as of 2025, city council discussions have revolved around treating a small Bitcoin allocation similarly to an innovative investment, signaling openness to crypto in public finance.
• Miami, Florida (USA): Miami gained fame for its crypto-friendly mayor and policies. The city launched its own cryptocurrency (MiamiCoin) and Mayor Francis Suarez openly advocated Bitcoin – even opting to take his pay in BTC – with the goal of turning Miami into a “Bitcoin capital.” While Miami’s municipal government did not directly hold Bitcoin in treasury, it did yield BTC rewards from the MiamiCoin project (converted from the protocol’s revenue) which were intended to fund civic projects and even pay dividends to citizens in Bitcoin . Miami also hosted major Bitcoin conferences, raising the city’s profile in the crypto community.
• Other Municipal Initiatives: A number of other cities have dipped their toes in Bitcoin. Fort Worth, Texas ran a pilot Bitcoin mining program at City Hall in 2022 (becoming the first city to mine BTC) to accumulate a small amount of BTC and signal support for the industry. In Switzerland, the city of Zug (known as “Crypto Valley”) began accepting Bitcoin for tax payments back in 2016, and Lugano launched “Plan ₿” in 2022 in partnership with Tether to promote BTC usage in daily transactions citywide. These European cities don’t necessarily hold large BTC reserves, but by integrating Bitcoin into city services and economy, they effectively endorse and facilitate crypto adoption at the local level.
Overall, most cities hold very little Bitcoin directly – often just experimental amounts or none at all – but their policy initiatives can be significant. By embracing Bitcoin (whether by holding some, accepting it for payments, or promoting local crypto economies), city governments aim to attract tech investment, tourism, and talent. For example, officials in Jackson, Tennessee and New York City have publicly supported Bitcoin integration (NYC’s mayor took salary in BTC), indicating a wider trend of municipalities vying to be seen as crypto-friendly. These efforts are more about strategic branding and future economic positioning than immediate financial heft, given the small scale of city holdings compared to national or corporate treasuries.
Country States and Provinces Adopting Bitcoin Strategies
Sub-national governments – such as U.S. states and other country subdivisions – are also entering the Bitcoin arena. In the United States especially, 2024–2025 saw a wave of proposals to establish state-level Bitcoin reserves or related crypto initiatives:
• Texas: Texas has been a leader with both legislation and action. In 2023, the state created a Texas Blockchain Working Group, and by mid-2025 Texas officially approved the Texas Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SB 21) . Uniquely, Texas also funded its reserve with an initial $10 million allocation in June 2025 – making it the first state to actually purchase BTC for a state-managed fund. This reserve, overseen by the State Comptroller, is intended to hedge against inflation, bolster financial resilience, and cement Texas’s reputation as a crypto-friendly economy . (Texas is already home to many Bitcoin mining operations due to its cheap energy and permissive regulations, further integrating Bitcoin into the state’s strategic economic plans.)
• New Hampshire: In May 2025, New Hampshire became the first U.S. state to enact a Bitcoin reserve law (HB 302) . This law empowers the state treasurer to invest up to 5% of New Hampshire’s state funds into Bitcoin and high-market-cap digital assets, as a diversification strategy . The law – signed by Governor Kelly Ayotte – mandates secure custody (state-controlled multi-signature wallets or regulated custodians) and treats Bitcoin as a complementary reserve asset rather than core holding . While New Hampshire had not publicly disclosed any BTC purchases as of late 2025 (the law was set to take effect 60 days after passage) , it laid the groundwork for the state to begin accumulating Bitcoin in 2026 as part of its rainy-day fund.
• Arizona: Arizona followed as the second state to approve a Bitcoin reserve (HB 2749), but with a more cautious approach . Rather than authorizing new spending on crypto, Arizona’s law created a “crypto reserve” funded only by non-tax sources – such as seized and forfeited crypto assets, unclaimed property in crypto, staking rewards, and airdrops received by the state . In other words, Arizona can build a Bitcoin reserve without using taxpayer money, by repurposing any crypto the state acquires through enforcement or escheatment. This reflects a conservative strategy to gain exposure to BTC’s upside without directly investing public funds (Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed earlier bills that would have allowed outright investment) .
• Other U.S. States: There has been a flurry of proposals across at least 25–30 states to consider Bitcoin reserves or related measures. North Carolina advanced a bill to allow up to 10% of state funds in Bitcoin via ETFs (still under consideration as of 2025) . Michigan introduced bills to let its state retirement fund invest in Bitcoin and to protect crypto users . Wyoming, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Florida, Montana, and others tabled Bitcoin reserve bills – though many of these stalled or failed in committees, often due to volatility concerns . For example, Wyoming’s 2024 attempt to create a BTC reserve did not pass , even though Wyoming remains one of the most crypto-forward states in other ways (e.g. special crypto banking charters and legal protections for node operators). Kentucky, while not pursuing a reserve, enacted a first-of-its-kind “Bitcoin Rights” law in 2025 to protect individuals’ use and custody of BTC and to prohibit discriminatory taxes on crypto – reinforcing its reputation as a crypto-friendly state.
Outside the U.S., we are beginning to see similar regional initiatives. In Switzerland, for instance, the canton of Lugano (Ticino) has partnered with private companies to integrate Bitcoin into the local economy (though the canton itself hasn’t yet disclosed holding BTC on its balance sheet). Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, in 2023 launched programs to embrace crypto trading under a regulatory framework, which, while not a reserve holding, signals how subnational entities can strategically position with crypto to gain financial hub status.
In summary, subnational states are treating Bitcoin as a strategic asset or policy tool in two main ways: (1) Reserve diversification – a handful of states like Texas and New Hampshire are actually authorizing BTC holdings to diversify and strengthen their treasuries, albeit starting with small percentages or dollar amounts. (2) Pro-crypto regulation – many states are passing laws to attract Bitcoin-related business (mining incentives, legal clarity for crypto firms, tax breaks, etc.) as an economic development strategy. These moves give states soft power in the crypto sector even if the absolute Bitcoin held by any state government is still very small (e.g. Texas’s $10 million would be only around 300–400 BTC at mid-2025 prices ). Over time, however, if Bitcoin’s value continues to rise, even a modest reserve could grow significantly, potentially boosting state coffers and validating the foresight of early adopters at the state level.
Influence of Bitcoin Holdings on Power and Strategy
Economically, large Bitcoin holdings can translate into financial influence – both for nations and institutions. Bitcoin’s fixed supply (21 million) means that whoever controls a significant stash wields a degree of influence over market liquidity and has a stake in the future monetary system. For example, governments like the U.S. and China, by holding hundreds of thousands of BTC, have the ability to impact markets (a large sell-off can depress prices , whereas continued holding or buying can tighten supply). The U.S. decision in 2025 to stop auctioning seized Bitcoin and instead treat it as a strategic reserve is emblematic – it signals that Bitcoin is being seen similarly to gold or foreign currency reserves, conferring potential long-term economic security. As more governments accumulate BTC, even modest buy orders by central banks or sovereign funds could contribute to a supply shock (given Bitcoin’s capped supply), possibly driving up prices and valuations of holdings . This dynamic suggests that early adopter states could reap outsized rewards: El Salvador’s 7,500 BTC, while small in global terms, could have a disproportionate positive impact on its economy if Bitcoin appreciates dramatically in the future, potentially bolstering national reserves or funding public projects. On the other hand, there are risks: high volatility means a sudden price drop can strain a country’s finances (for instance, a sharp dip in BTC value would hurt El Salvador’s balance sheet, though so far they have weathered volatility). Countries that rely on international loans also face political pressure – the IMF has warned against Bitcoin-forward policies, even tying El Salvador’s loan terms to limiting Bitcoin use . Thus, holding BTC is also a geopolitical statement: it may reduce reliance on traditional financial systems but could invite external scrutiny or sanctions (in extreme cases).
For corporations and private institutions, holding Bitcoin confers strategic financial optionality and market influence. A company like MicroStrategy, by holding ~0.7 million BTC, has aligned its fate with Bitcoin’s success; its CEO has become an influential advocate in policy discourse. These large corporate holders lend legitimacy to Bitcoin as an acceptable treasury asset, potentially encouraging broader institutional adoption (each new Fortune 500 holding BTC further normalizes it). They also gain a voice in shaping crypto regulations. For example, corporate holders and industry groups lobby for clear accounting rules and favorable tax treatment for digital assets. If Bitcoin’s price surges, firms with big allocations could see balance-sheet windfalls, enhancing their market capitalization and financial clout (conversely, downturns can hurt earnings and stock prices, as seen when Bitcoin’s 2022 decline caused MicroStrategy to incur impairment losses). Another aspect of power is that institutional accumulation (including through ETFs) is removing float from the market – nearly 18% of BTC is held by governments, corporations, or funds that tend to be long-term holders . This concentration of holdings might lead to decreased liquidity and more stable long-term prices, effectively shifting Bitcoin’s center of gravity from retail to institutional hands. Such a shift can reduce Bitcoin’s volatility over time (as Chainalysis notes, sovereign adoption could dampen volatility and integrate BTC into mainstream finance ), but it also means a large portion of Bitcoin’s supply – and thus influence over its network – resides with big entities (raising the stakes for security and custody, as any breach or misuse by these big holders could be catastrophic ).
On a political and strategic level, Bitcoin holdings can serve as a tool for financial autonomy and diplomatic leverage. Nations with significant BTC reserves might use them as bargaining chips or insurance against sanctions and global financial turbulence. For instance, a country facing currency crises or sanctions could pivot to Bitcoin for international payments, as a neutral reserve asset not controlled by any other state. We see early hints of this: sanctioned regimes (like North Korea or Iran) have looked to crypto to bypass traditional systems – North Korea’s alleged 13k BTC from hacks gives it an off-the-books funding source immune to foreign seizure . More legitimately, countries like Russia, Hong Kong, Brazil, and Poland have reportedly explored Bitcoin as a strategic asset or allowed crypto trading in order to position themselves in the emerging digital economy . If a “Bitcoin race” were to emerge, countries and states accumulating BTC now could gain a first-mover advantage in the event that Bitcoin becomes analogous to digital gold or a global reserve currency in the future. This is why some U.S. states are rushing to pass Bitcoin reserve bills – there is a sense that “sovereign stack” size might matter in the long run, both for wealth and for technological leadership in blockchain innovation .
Looking at cities and states, their Bitcoin forays are more about soft power and signaling than immediate economic might. A city that embraces Bitcoin (like Miami or Lugano) sends a message of innovation and openness, potentially attracting blockchain startups, investors, and skilled workforce. This can have long-term economic payoffs: thriving crypto industries mean job creation and tax revenue. Furthermore, municipalities holding or mining a bit of BTC create case studies that larger governments watch. If small-scale experiments go well (e.g., a city earns extra revenue from mining or sees increased tech tourism), it paves the way for broader adoption. Conversely, local failures or public backlash can slow policy momentum elsewhere. There’s also a governance aspect: local Bitcoin holdings force improvements in public-sector crypto custody, education, and legal frameworks, which can set precedents. For example, New York’s and Miami’s public embrace of Bitcoin sparked national conversations about regulatory standards and the role of crypto in urban innovation.
Future Outlook and Projections
Current data trends show a clear trajectory: institutional and government ownership of Bitcoin is rising, integrating this once-fringe asset into traditional structures. As of 2025, about 17–18% of all BTC is held by governments, corporations, funds, or other entities that are not individual retail holders . Industry analysts project this percentage to grow in coming years, especially with the introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs (enabling pensions and more conservative institutions to allocate to BTC easily). Blockchain analytics firms note that governments now hold roughly 2.3% of all BTC – a share that has grown from previous years as more seized BTC is retained and countries like El Salvador keep buying . If more nation-states follow the U.S. lead in treating Bitcoin as a strategic reserve, we could see a scenario in the late 2020s where a significant minority of Bitcoin is in sovereign wealth funds or central bank reserves. Some commentators even speculate Bitcoin could be added to the balance sheets of central banks or supranational funds in a decade’s time, especially for countries seeking alternatives to USD reserves. However, this will likely happen first via sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) rather than conservative central banks . SWFs in energy-rich nations (e.g. the Middle East) or tech-forward states (e.g. Singapore’s GIC) might allocate a small percentage to Bitcoin as a high-growth diversifier . In fact, Norway’s giant oil fund already has indirect Bitcoin exposure through equity stakes in companies like MicroStrategy and Coinbase , hinting at a path where sovereign investors tiptoe into crypto via proxies before holding BTC outright.
On the corporate side, the future will likely see more companies adding Bitcoin to their treasuries, especially if BTC continues to mature as an asset class. The precedent set by MicroStrategy, Tesla, and others – combined with clearer accounting rules – could encourage blue-chip companies to allocate a small percent of cash reserves to BTC as a hedge (much like some hold gold or foreign currency). If Bitcoin’s price stabilizes above certain thresholds and its market cap grows, even a 1–2% allocation by large firms or institutional investors can drive huge demand (since the total supply is limited). Blockchain scarcity dynamics imply that as adoption rises, those entities already holding large positions stand to gain outsized influence. We might also see consolidation: for instance, if major tech companies or banks acquire big holders (imagine a big bank buying MicroStrategy or a crypto custodian), that would transfer large pools of BTC under traditional financial umbrella – further blurring lines between the crypto economy and traditional finance.
For cities and states, future projections center on integration and innovation rather than massive hoards of BTC. We can expect more local governments to test blockchain applications and crypto incentives (e.g. issuing local bonds on blockchain, accepting Bitcoin for more fees, maybe even raising funds via tokenization). Cities might not accumulate huge Bitcoin reserves, but they will use Bitcoin as a tool to modernize services and attract investment (for example, a city could hold some BTC to fund blockchain-based infrastructure projects or to back municipal digital tokens). U.S. states’ experiments will be especially telling – if Texas’s $10M Bitcoin reserve grows substantially in value, other states will have evidence to justify their own treasuries. By contrast, if volatility burns a state budget, it could retard adoption. Over the next 5–10 years, it’s plausible that a handful of state governments (or provinces internationally) will each hold thousands of BTC as long-term reserves, effectively creating a decentralized mosaic of “state crypto reserves” alongside national reserves. This could introduce a new dimension to federalism – for example, well-endowed state BTC funds might support state budgets or bonds, potentially giving those states more fiscal autonomy or leverage.
Strategically, the implications are profound. Widespread governmental and institutional ownership of Bitcoin would mark its transition from a niche speculative asset to a recognized component of the global financial system. Such a shift could decrease Bitcoin’s volatility (as more is held in long-term reserves), but also entrench it as a geopolitical asset. Nations might begin to cooperate or compete in Bitcoin strategies; we could envision future G20 discussions or IMF guidelines on managing digital asset reserves . There are calls for international coordination on this front – e.g. frameworks for how much of reserves can be in crypto, how to handle custodianship, etc., to avoid fragmentation . At the same time, Bitcoin’s ethos of decentralization means power is diffuse: even with large holders, no single actor controls the network. This could actually empower smaller players (a small nation with a big Bitcoin stake can have a voice in a way it couldn’t in IMF SDR allocations, for example).
In conclusion, the landscape of Bitcoin holdings is rapidly evolving from individual enthusiasts to nation-states and megacorporations. Those entities currently holding the most BTC – whether countries like the U.S./China, corporations like MicroStrategy, or crypto funds – have positioned themselves at the forefront of a potential monetary revolution. Their holdings already grant economic advantages (from portfolio growth to inflation hedging) and a strategic seat at the table as Bitcoin’s role in the world economy expands. Going forward, the balance of power could, at least in part, be shaped by who holds how much Bitcoin, much as gold reserves or oil reserves have conferred power in the past. Every additional government wallet or corporate treasury that accumulates bitcoins is effectively a bet that Bitcoin’s influence will only grow – and given the trends in adoption and integration, that bet is one many more institutions may be willing to take in the near future.