China Accuses U.S. of Seizing 127,272 BTC From LuBian Mining Pool

China's cybersecurity arm, the National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center (CVERC), published a striking allegation on Sunday: 127,272 BTC stolen from the LuBian mining pool in 2020 were quietly wrested under U.S. government control after a four-year-long operation. At today's prices that haul is roughly $13 billion, making the claim one of the largest state-level seizures ever alleged in crypto history.

Market reaction and short-term impacts

News of this magnitude can move markets even when unconfirmed. Traders will watch on-chain flows, exchange inflows and known custody addresses for signs that these coins are being consolidated, moved or liquidated. Historically, large transfers tied to law enforcement can cause temporary price pressure or volatility, but the actual market impact depends on whether the assets are sold, frozen, or redeployed.

For portfolio managers, miners and DeFi participants, the key questions are traceability and intent. If the accounts CVERC cites are indeed under government custody, that changes the calculus for how quickly these coins could re-enter the market. Until independent forensic analysis is released, statements from additional agencies, or visible movements on-chain, the allegation remains a major red flag rather than a settled fact. This episode also highlights why robust custodial practices and transparency matter across the blockchain ecosystem.

Technical forensics and open questions

CVERC’s report links the 2020 LuBian pool breach to a sustained operation culminating in the alleged transfer to U.S. control. Important technical details — wallet clusters, transaction signatures, timestamps, and links to known law-enforcement addresses — have not been made public in a way that independent analysts can reproduce. Without open forensic data, attribution is inherently contested and subject to political framing.

On-chain investigators will look for telltale markers: reuse of input-addresses, patterns consistent with mixer services, and ultimate destination addresses associated with official takedowns. The community will also examine whether any seized coins show signs of interaction with major DeFi protocols or custodial platforms, potentially affecting liquidity in lending markets and exchanges.

Geopolitical and legal implications

If substantiated, the claim would deepen tensions between Beijing and Washington and raise legal questions about cross-border cyber operations, sovereignty and the handling of digital assets tied to criminal activity. For crypto businesses and users — from miners to apps like Bitlet.app — the episode is a reminder that geopolitical risk can directly influence on-chain asset flows and market trust.

For now, market participants should treat the report as an evolving story: watch for corroborating forensic disclosures, official responses from U.S. agencies, and any on-chain movement. Strong operational security, clear custody practices, and transparent audits remain the best defenses against the kind of theft and contested rescues this case alleges.

Conclusion: the CVERC accusation is significant and merits careful, independent verification. Until then, expect heightened scrutiny across exchanges, custodians and the wider crypto market as analysts attempt to reconcile technical evidence with competing political narratives.