A recent report by the firm Unchained warns of the risks associated with Bitcoin (BTC) custody in the United States. According to the analysis, although there is currently little uncertainty about the continued custody of these funds due to the Trump administration's stance, a change of government could turn them into a kind of "low-hanging fruit" for obtaining liquidity.

Analyst Nic Carter shared an excerpt from the report on social media with a clear warning, arguing that the government's efforts around Bitcoin should not be celebrated, and that the strategic reserve authorized by Donald Trump remains a dangerous path.

Thus, the report warns: "History shows that measures that once seemed extreme can become popular under certain pressures." In particular, it notes that a future government facing "out-of-control budget deficits and escalating internal or military conflicts" could adopt a more adversarial stance.

In that sense, large Bitcoin reserves held in heavily regulated local entities could be vulnerable to forced confiscations to obtain liquidity.

Tuur Demeester, a finance specialist who shared the excerpt retweeted by Nic Carter, puts the risk into perspective with a concrete example of other state investments. "The US government now owns 10% of Intel. Could something similar happen with companies that hold Bitcoin?" he warned.

It's worth remembering that in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to create a Bitcoin reserve, composed of assets seized by the government without resorting to periodic BTC purchases. According to unofficial estimates, this reserve is close to 200,000 BTC.

The truth is that these warnings have been around for several months. In February, Arthur Hayes, former CEO of BitMEX, pointed out that "the fundamental problem with a government accumulating an asset is that it buys and sells it primarily for political, not financial, reasons."

Therefore, the businessman sees a scenario of maximum uncertainty if the opposition returns to power and finds itself with millions of BTC ready to be sold.

Possible aftershocks at the state level

Although the United States is a federal country where each state has the autonomy to legislate over its finances and digital assets, a change in national administration could have repercussions for state governments if there are no laws protecting them.

Recall that jurisdictions such as New Hampshire and Arizona have approved bitcoin reserves, through legislation that enables the creation of BTC and cryptocurrency reserves, although with different approaches: New Hampshire authorizes direct investments, while Arizona allows the use of unclaimed digital assets and staking rewards in a special fund.

However, if a federal administration hostile to the sector were to come to power, aligned state governors and legislators could attempt to restrict or even confiscate these reserves for sale, replicating locally what is implemented from Washington.

While Donald Trump's return to the presidency has been accompanied by favorable rhetoric toward Bitcoin and the industry, and some measures have followed suit, it should not be forgotten that this is a political force.

Furthermore, the lack of clarity regarding the exact amount of BTC held by the government, the absence of transparent audits, and the back-and-forth in official rhetoric don't help matters. First, the possibility of accumulating Bitcoin through government-neutral spending strategies was raised, and then Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent assured that only seized assets would be retained… He ultimately qualified his words.

Given this lack of clarity, the shifting positions, and the differences in public policy regarding digital currency, caution on this issue remains the best guide for analyzing government moves in the sector.