A judge has paused proceedings against 39,069 Bitcoin wallets worth approximately $293 billion after an amicus brief filed on May 29 challenged the case's legal basis. According to reports from Galaxy Research, the lawsuit filed by pseudonymous plaintiff 'Noah Doe' seeks ownership of Bitcoin held across these addresses, but the recent legal development has shifted market focus from immediate action to potential future implications. The next key date remains the July 14 hearing, where the court will determine whether the plaintiffs' theory of treating dormant blockchain addresses as abandoned property holds legal weight.
The Bitcoin on-chain activity shows specific and traceable movements across multiple wallets. As reported by Galaxy Research, wallet 1LwWtSs7tMCwcRczQd5kVMv3xpWw6w4Sxe received 35.55 BTC on March 27, 2011, when Bitcoin was worth less than a dollar, and moved 15 BTC on June 2, recorded in block 952,104 at 16:46 UTC, leaving 20.55 BTC in place. Wallet 18sLgPeB9wQVrE8JoWqtKtnucbsx3Lw1m7, which had received 47.25 BTC in June 2011, moved its entire balance in block 952,642 at 00:52 UTC, marking its first movement in nearly 15 years. Both transactions were flagged by crypto whale alerts from Galaxy Research, with Thorn noting that many coins from 2011 labeled as 'lost' in the New York lawsuit are neither lost nor abandoned; they are 'awakening and moving on-chain.'
The amicus brief argues that dormancy alone does not equal abandonment and that plaintiffs lack the private keys needed to control the coins. As reported by Galaxy Research, the legal theory relies on treating dormant blockchain addresses as abandoned or lost property, but the amicus brief warns such a decision could be misleading exchanges and custodians by implying transferable ownership without private keys. Galaxy Research's Alex Thorn maintains that these are not Satoshi's coins, with the wallets not matching address cluster fingerprints associated with Satoshi Nakamoto's known mining patterns. The practical debate centers on whether traders should continue carrying a supply-dislocation premium in their models once dormant wallets start showing activity, particularly as Bitcoin's demand base looked less firm at the start of June with record ETF outflows.
The case could establish legal precedents affecting digital asset ownership, with the July 14 hearing remaining the critical date for market participants. Between December 2024 and April 2025, plaintiffs provided wallet details to the NYPD and issued on-chain messages allowing holders 90 days to assert ownership. Attorney Ian R. Cohen filed a brief challenging the lawsuit's premise, stating that inactivity does not equate to abandonment. The market is treating this as a selective short-term overhang trade, with lighter positioning potentially making sense if the ruling favors the plaintiffs or if more dormant transfers appear. A ruling that weakens the plaintiffs' case could let the market drop the supply-shock premium quickly, while continued dormant wallet activity could pressure prices even if headline amounts suggest otherwise.
