Bitcoin Policy Institute, or BPI, has asked the New York Supreme Court to let it join the "Noah Doe" case as a defendant, according to a post from Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn. The filing was submitted on July 10 local time, with White & Case representing BPI. The group also lodged a proposed answer, listed 15 defenses, and said it plans to seek dismissal.
The lawsuit centers on an anonymous plaintiff’s attempt to claim legal ownership of roughly 3.8 million dormant BTC under New York abandoned property law. That figure includes bitcoin allegedly linked to Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings. BPI argued that it has a self-custodied bitcoin reserve intended for long-term holding, and that those assets match the plaintiff’s definition of “abandoned” property. On that basis, BPI said its own holdings would be directly exposed if the plaintiff’s theory were accepted.
BPI’s filing argues that knowing a public address is comparable to knowing someone else’s account number and does not confer ownership, that wallets do not exist on-chain, and that holding bitcoin for a long period without selling does not mean relinquishing it. The case has already drawn other participants, including defendant "John Doe 33," the Digital Chamber, and bitcoin attorney @btclawyerguy. A hearing on an order to show cause is scheduled for next week.
Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI) has applied to intervene in the "Noah Doe" case before the New York Supreme Court and enter the case as a defendant, according to a post by Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn. The application was filed on July 10 local time. White & Case is representing BPI.
BPI also submitted a proposed answer, set out 15 defenses, and plans to file a motion to dismiss.
Claim targets about 3.8 million dormant BTC
The "Noah Doe" case is a New York state lawsuit in which an anonymous plaintiff is invoking New York abandoned property law to claim legal ownership of about 3.8 million dormant BTC. That amount includes bitcoin said to be part of Satoshi Nakamoto’s holdings.
BPI says its own reserve could be at risk
In its intervention filing, BPI said it self-custodies a bitcoin reserve that it intends to hold for the long term. It argued that those holdings match the plaintiff’s definition of "abandoned" property. If that legal theory were accepted, BPI said, its own bitcoin would face direct risk, giving it standing to intervene.
BPI’s arguments focus on ownership and custody
BPI’s core arguments are that knowing a public address is like knowing another person’s account number and does not create ownership rights over the assets, that the wallet itself does not exist on-chain, and that long-term holding without selling is not abandonment but hodl.
Other parties have already stepped in
Other participants had already entered the case before BPI’s filing. Defendant "John Doe 33" has appeared pro se and argued that the entire lawsuit is invalid. The Digital Chamber filed an amicus brief opposing the plaintiff’s legal theory. Bitcoin attorney @btclawyerguy also filed an amicus brief. A hearing on the order to show cause is set for next week.
This article was originally published by Bit.Fan. For more cryptocurrency news and market insights, visit www.bit.fan. Disclaimer:
The market information, project data, and third-party content displayed on this platform are for industry information sharing only and do not constitute any form of investment advice or return commitment.
Cryptocurrency trading carries high risks. Users should fully assess their risk tolerance and make independent decisions. All profits, losses, and legal responsibilities are borne by the users themselves.
