On July 7, the Digital Chamber submitted its second amicus brief in a high-profile New York lawsuit, directly opposing the plaintiffs' claim to ownership of 39,069 dormant Bitcoin addresses. The trade association warned that the court's acceptance of such arguments could fundamentally damage the foundations of digital asset ownership, with potential ripple effects reaching both crypto markets and traditional finance.
Case scope and industry concerns
The lawsuit, filed in late May by an individual using the pseudonym Noah Doe and two Wyoming-based companies, seeks control over addresses estimated to hold approximately 3.7 million BTC—worth around $234 billion at current prices. According to Sani, founder of Timechain Index, some of these wallets are linked to Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto.
The Digital Chamber argued that treating dormant wallets as abandoned property would cast a cloud over self-custodied wallets and weaken the legal underpinnings of digital property rights. The organization represents over 250 member firms active in the digital asset sector.
Renewed on-chain activity
Several addresses listed in the lawsuit, dormant for years, have recently resumed transactions. Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, reported that at least 31 addresses transferred a total of 17,527 BTC in June. Separately, 4,834 BTC were moved from five addresses in February. On Saturday, an address known as 1KV47 sent 30 BTC (roughly $1.88 million)—its first transaction since August 2011.
The private key dilemma and new procedural twist
Even if the plaintiffs win a favorable ruling, whether they can gain actual control without possessing the private keys remains questionable. Property claims and technical access are not synonymous in crypto, posing significant enforcement hurdles.
On Thursday, a pseudonymous defendant informed the court that they controlled one of the dormant wallets named in the lawsuit and filed a motion to intervene and dismiss the case. This development has intensified debate about whether all listed addresses are truly ownerless or inaccessible. The court's decision is expected to set a precedent not only for this case but also for the legal status of long-inactive crypto assets more broadly.