Bitcoin: SEC Weighs Possible Seizure of Venezuela’s Alleged 600,000 BTC

There is talk of a “treasure” of 600,000 BTC attributed to Venezuela: a figure that sounds like a threat. Washington is considering the idea of a seizure, without openly admitting it. Paul S. Atkins, chairman of the SEC, confirms nothing… but does not close the door. And that is where everything changes: bitcoin is no longer just an asset, it is a geopolitical lever. The essential remains to be decided: evidence, keys, and the power to seize.

An alleged bitcoin treasure, an absent certainty

The first point to calm excitement: the reserve of 600,000 BTC is not confirmed. Even actors accustomed to tracking illicit flows explain that they do not see, “clearly,” a bitcoin jackpot of this size on the chain attributable to the regime. In other words: much noise, few addresses.

The story has taken on momentum in an explosive context. In early January, the United States announced the capture of Nicolás Maduro during a controversial military operation. This political shock immediately fueled speculation: if the power is shaky, where are the vaults?

And yet, even if Venezuela flirted with crypto (the Petro in 2018 remains a symbol of this monetary flight forward), this does not prove the existence of an “imperial bitcoin wallet” filled to the brim. What is plausible, however, is the existence of scattered pockets. Parallel circuits. Private safeguards. In short, something more fragmented, therefore harder to seize. If the asset is uncertain, the seizure is even more so. And here, Atkins’s phrase becomes interesting.

“The SEC is not in charge”: what Atkins’s phrase means

Paul Atkins acknowledged the uncertainty and recalled an institutional reality: the SEC is not the agency that directs the seizure of sovereign assets. Its role relates to markets and investor protection, not the takeover of assets in the name of national strategy.

In practice, a seizure of bitcoins “linked to a State” quickly shifts to other centers of gravity: DOJ (confiscation procedures), Treasury/OFAC (sanctions), sometimes national security parts. And the core of the battle is not legal, it is technical: holding the keys. Without access to the private keys, only hypotheses remain, or indirect seizures (platforms, intermediaries, hardware). This is where law meets silicon.

Hence the subtext: Washington may be “open” to the idea, but as long as the bitcoin reserve is not identified and attributable, the discussion resembles a treasure map without a red cross. Even some recent articles insist on this lack of “on-chain” proof to support the circulating figure.

And it is precisely because the gray area is expanding that Congress pulls out another tool: the law.

CLARITY Act: when America wants to set rules where there were only battles

While the “600,000 BTC” case turns heads, the Senate is advancing on a more structural project: the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (H.R. 3633). The text aims to clarify who regulates what, notably between the SEC and the CFTC, and to make the field clearer for market participants, including DeFi, which often lives in between.

This is no accident: if Congress wants an America capable of “managing” crypto crises, it needs stable rules, not reactive piecemeal measures. The fact that the Senate Banking Committee schedules formal steps around the text shows that the era of regulatory improvisation even tires those who do not like crypto.

But beware of the detail that annoys: financial organizations are already warning about certain points, notably what looks like incentives (rewards/yields) around payment stablecoins. In other words, even when talking about “clarity,” everyone pushes their red line.