bitcoin – Fintechnically Speaking

Virtual currency exchanges and blockchain technology continue to raise novel questions for U.S. courts, including in the application or limitations of privacy rights to blockchain users under criminal prosecution. In the latest development, a federal appeals court has ruled that defendants do not have the type of privacy protections over crypto transactions that require law enforcement to first secure a search warrant. In short, a regular grand jury subpoena was sufficient to obtain the crypto data, resulting in a solid victory for prosecutors.

In United States v. Gratkowski, 964 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no privacy interest in both Bitcoin blockchain data and Bitcoin transaction history to justify the requirement that law enforcement secure a search warrant first.

In Gratkowski, the Fifth Circuit analyzed whether the Fourth Amendment protected a criminal defendant’s privacy interests in data located on a virtual currency exchange and the virtual currency exchange’s blockchain. The background is that defendant Gratkowski became the subject of a federal investigation after using Bitcoin to pay for online child pornography. Federal agents were able to identify Gratkowski after analyzing the publicly viewable Bitcoin blockchain to identify a cluster of Bitcoin addresses controlled by the website. The agents then used that information to serve a routine grand jury subpoena on Coinbase for all information on the Coinbase customers whose accounts had sent Bitcoin to any of the addresses in the website’s cluster. The agents identified Gratkowski as one of these customers and thereafter, based on the information from the grand jury subpoena, obtained a search warrant for evidence in his home, where they obtained additional incriminating evidence.

Gratkowski filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the search warrant, arguing that the original subpoena to Coinbase and the blockchain analysis violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment. In effect, the defendant argued that law enforcement needed a search warrant for his records located at Coinbase. The trial court denied the motion, and Gratkowski appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit.

On appeal, Gratkowski argued that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his information held in the Bitcoin blockchain and Coinbase records by comparing it to cell-site location information (“CSLI”), which the U.S. Supreme Court has held to implicate constitutional privacy concerns such that a search warrant is required. The appellate court disagreed with Gratkowski and held that he lacked a privacy interest in both the Bitcoin blockchain data and his Bitcoin transaction history on Coinbase because that information is more analogous to bank records, which are not subject to privacy protections.

In reaching its conclusion, the court applied the third-party doctrine, which provides that a person generally does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. Specifically, the appellate court found that “Coinbase is a financial institution, a virtual currency exchange, that provides Bitcoin users with a method for transferring Bitcoin. The main difference between Coinbase and traditional banks… is that Coinbase deals with virtual currency while traditional banks deal with physical currency. But both are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act as regulated financial institutions.” The court further focused on “the nature of the information and the voluntariness of the exposure” in concluding that it “weigh[ed] heavily against finding a privacy interest in Coinbase records.” Unlike CSLI, information on the Bitcoin blockchain and held by Coinbase is limited to transaction amounts and identifying information about sender and beneficiary, and each Bitcoin transaction is recorded in a publicly available blockchain accessible to every Bitcoin user. Additionally, transacting Bitcoin through Coinbase or other virtual currency exchange requires the user to perform an “affirmative act” in transacting through a third-party intermediary. Therefore, Gratkowski did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in either the Bitcoin blockchain data or his Coinbase transaction history requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant.

Other U.S. courts have relied on the Gratkowski court’s conclusion that account information and records obtained by the federal government from virtual currency exchanges are not subject to constitutional privacy protections.[1]

We will continue monitoring Gratkowski and its progeny and whether these issues ultimately come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Disclaimer: The content provided is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. While our law firm has substantial experience in cryptocurrency law and regulation, we do not offer investment advice or opinions on cryptocurrency as an investment. Consult a financial advisor before investing.

[1] See, e.g., Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024); United States v. Patel, No. 23-CR-166 (DLF), 2024 WL 1932871 (D.D.C. May 1, 2024); Harper v. Rettig, 675 F. Supp. 3d 190 (D.N.H. 2023), aff’d sub nom. Harper v. Werfel, 118 F.4th 100 (1st Cir. 2024); United States v. Harris, No. 1:21-CR-74-6, 2023 WL 3475406 (S.D. Ohio May 15, 2023).

December 6, 2024March 31, 2025 by Terry R. Weiss

Paul Atkins’ Nomination as SEC Chair Helps to Push Bitcoin Above $100k (for now), But Why…?

Almost immediately after President-Elect Trump posted his announcement of Paul Atkins to replace Gary Gensler as the SEC Chair, the crypto sector, including Bitcoin, rallied, alongside the equity market rally led by the tech sector. Cheers from crypto sector leadership followed. Sure, Chairman Gensler has been no friend of Crypto, begrudgingly approving the trading of Bitcoin-based ETFs and more significantly engaging in rule-making through enforcement. It makes sense then that the expected exit of Chairman Gensler would be applauded, but why Paul Atkins?

SEC Chair nominee Atkins served as an SEC Commissioner with Chairmen Harvey Pitt, Bill Donaldson and Chris Cox, from 2002-2008 and since, has served as the founder and CEO of Patomak Global Partners, consulting for the securities and crypto industries on all manner of topics.

Last February, while in the private sector, SEC Chair nominee Atkins agreed to be interviewed on an outwardly Libertarian podcast. He broadly declared that while the SEC should prosecute illegal activity, like FTX, the agency should also otherwise accommodate innovation to encourage the flow of capital. He stressed that regulators should be “attuned” to opportunities for innovation and “accommodate…reasonably…things that are out there to advance cost savings and innovation.” Specifically, “[t]he SEC should be there with its ear to the ground to figure out which way things are moving and should accommodate activity that’s not criminal and enable markets to flourish because…if it challenges incumbents…and it helps to bring down costs for investors and for people who are trying to raise capital…that’s the reason why we have financial markets and to have capital find its way…to businesses.”[1] This was hardly the regulation through prosecution which was a hallmark of the administration under Chairman Gensler.

While stressing innovation, SEC Chair nominee Atkins was certainly no fan of FTX, SBF or their fraud. But at its core, it was not a problem with crypto: “It happened to happen in the crypto space, but when you peel back the layers it’s the same thing that happened elsewhere, someone without proper controls without proper governance of the corporation uses other peoples’ money to do things without accountability.” Like Madoff decades before, SEC Chair nominee Atkins noted that “[SBF] was not accountable to anyone, there was no board.”

But innovation aside, there is still the fundamental question of whether crypto qualifies as a security and appropriate for SEC regulation. While the SEC under Chairman Gensler and defense counsel fought vigorously over whether crypto did or did not meet the Howey test,[2] a case decided over 60 years before Satoshi Nakamoto first implemented the blockchain, SEC Chair nominee Atkins presented a different view: he noted that the Howey case is “quite old, it’s arguable whether or not it’s still current…I could see the Supreme Court reexamining that for its coherence to the current environment and whether or not it needs to be tweaked.” In the meantime, while the regulatory issues are being resolved, SEC Chair nominee Atkins signaled that the cryptocurrency industry needed certainty in regulation akin to the SEC’s current safe harbor rules for securities offerings: “Safe harbors have done a good job in giving certainty to industry and of course in this particular industry [cryptocurrency] we need certainty, of course there’s a dearth of that now.”[3]

As someone who is committed to promoting innovation and workable regulation, while prosecuting real bad actors, it is no wonder the markets and commentators have applauded the nomination of Paul Atkins so loudly.

[1] See Keep Your Government Hands Off My Crypto | Guest: Paul Atkins | Ep 215 – YouTube.

[2] Sec. and Exch. Comm’n v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

[3] See The Capital ’19: Fireside Chat with Paul Atkins, Former Commissioner, U.S. SEC – YouTube.

December 5, 2024March 31, 2025 by Gregory Bailey

Trump’s Crypto Strategy: A White House Role and the Vision of a Bitcoin Reserve

By Stefanie Wyaco, Matthew A. Catania, and Gregory Bailey.

President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory sparked a renewed interest in integrating cryptocurrency into the U.S. government’s economic strategy. During his campaign, Trump proposed the idea of building a national Bitcoin stockpile and creating a dedicated White House role for cryptocurrency. This role could take several forms, including a single advisor or a larger advisory council, and might even extend to managing a Bitcoin reserve.

A New White House Role

A White House crypto advisor or council would play a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s cryptocurrency policies. This figure would likely collaborate with Congress to draft and pass legislation, with the goal of creating a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency in the U.S. Potentially operating under the National Economic Council, the advisor or council would work in close coordination with regulatory agencies, signaling the administration’s commitment to fostering innovation while addressing current regulatory inefficiencies.

The potential creation of a Bitcoin or crypto reserve would add a new layer of complexity. Managing such a reserve would require deep coordination among the Federal Reserve, Treasury, CFTC, and SEC. While the CFTC and SEC have put forth crypto-related advisory notices and orders appearing to regulate certain activity, the industry still lacks clear consistent guidance despite the SEC taking enforcement actions—all of which is likely to change under the Trump Administration. Whereas the Federal Reserve oversees the country’s monetary policy, supervises and regulates financial institutions, conducts payment and settlement safety and efficiency, and promotes consumer protection. Much like the Federal Reserve, a Bitcoin reserve would serve as a strategic asset, with monetary authorities regulating its use for purposes like consumer protection, financial stability, and enforcing debt policies.

One of the central questions surrounding the creation of a Bitcoin reserve is how to handle exchanges, which play a crucial role in the trading and liquidity of cryptocurrencies. Two types of exchanges are often discussed: centralized and decentralized. Centralized exchanges, operated by a single entity, offer a degree of consumer protection, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements through identity verification and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements through transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting, proof of funds requests, and restrictions in certain jurisdictions. These measures help centralized exchanges comply with applicable consumer protection laws and financial reporting obligations, and attract institutional investors, while offering a broad range of supported cryptocurrencies.

Decentralized exchanges, on the other hand, operate on blockchain technology and allow for peer-to-peer trading, and often require purchasing native tokens for the transaction fees. Decentralized exchanges also offer more privacy, including anonymity and minimal data collection due to the lack of KYC requirements, which aligns with Bitcoin’s original purpose. The blockchain technology is supported by secure cryptography encryption, which creates a unique publicly available signature for each transaction such that the subsequent blocks are linked to previous transactions and cannot be modified without modifying the entire chain. This is an efficient method to automate decentralized transactions with smart contracts, reduces middlemen transaction fees, and offers near-instant settlement of funds.

Deciding how the government plans to interact with these types of exchanges and potentially integrate a Bitcoin reserve, whether via an exchange or not, will be pivotal for the crypto space moving forward. A government Bitcoin reserve could serve as a potential stabilizer and exchange, regardless of Bitcoin’s classification status, whether as an asset, commodity, or currency. However, national reserves may trigger global competition for additional reserves that can cause higher demands with less supply. Therefore, a formal role overseeing a reserve, policy implications, and regulations would be a logical step.

What a National Bitcoin Reserve Would Look Like

U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming has already proposed a plan for building a national Bitcoin reserve, and she intends to revisit it in January 2025. Senator Lummis’ plan envisions the accumulation of one million Bitcoins over the next 20 years, with the goal of positioning the cryptocurrency as a hedge against inflation and as a complement to the U.S. dollar. Senator Lummis’ proposal would convert a portion of the Federal Reserve’s gold certificates into Bitcoin assets.

Proponents of a reserve argue it will reduce the national debt, free up U.S. dollars for other uses, and position Bitcoin as a long-term financial asset. Already, some investors and organizations are moving toward a similar strategy. Tether, for example, a leading stablecoin issuer, has amassed a large reserve of U.S. Treasury bills, indirectly backing Bitcoin and supporting its use as a stable asset. Tether tokens, USDT, are stablecoin assets tied to real-world currencies on a one-to-one basis. Stablecoins are blockchain based currencies that are tied to fiat currencies. Stablecoins are intended to reduce volatility for traders and businesses, especially crypto exchanges, wallets, and payment processors. Tether, or the like, could indirectly support a Bitcoin reserve by providing stable dollar-backed liquidity and foster Bitcoin-backed lending.

Challenges Ahead: Congressional Approval and Public Skepticism

While the momentum for a national Bitcoin reserve is growing, the path to implementation will face significant hurdles, particularly when it comes to securing Congressional approval. Lawmakers will need to address concerns around inflation, economic volatility, and the broader implications of such a reserve on the U.S. financial system. Public skepticism about cryptocurrency, combined with regulatory uncertainty, and active litigation may slow progress, despite the seemingly crypto-friendly administration.

Nevertheless, the increasing institutional and governmental interest in cryptocurrencies world-wide suggests that the conversation around Bitcoin as a strategic asset will only intensify. How the new administration navigates these discussions, and whether Congress shares the same enthusiasm, will shape the future the global crypto market and the United States’ role in it.

November 19, 2024April 3, 2025 by Duane Morris

Bitcoin ETF Launch Expands Trading Opportunities

On November 19, the Options Clearing Corporation (OCC) and Nasdaq launched Bitcoin ETF options—starting with BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT)―signaling a new era of cryptocurrency financial instruments. The launch of Bitcoin ETF options in the United States marks a new moment for cryptocurrency markets. Options promise to transform how institutional and retail investors engage with Bitcoin.

November 14, 2024April 3, 2025 by Duane Morris

Impact of the Presidential Election on the Future of Digital Assets in the United States

By Vincent J. Nolan III

During his first term in office, President Trump expressed skepticism about cryptocurrencies, saying that he was “not a fan” and that they were based on “thin air.” However, statements made during the campaign leading to his election on November 5, as well as his family’s involvement in the crypto space, indicate that the new Trump administration now holds a favorable stance toward the industry. The post-election rally in cryptocurrency markets certainly indicates that the industry believes that the incoming Trump administration will be pro-crypto.

In this post, we will explore what the future of cryptocurrency might look like under a Trump-led government, how regulatory changes could unfold, and the potential timeline for meaningful reform.

1. A Pro-Crypto Administration

Based on his campaign rhetoric and the Trump family’s increasing involvement in crypto, it appears that President Trump will be a more crypto-friendly president than his predecessor. For example, his policy proposals have included the following:

Aggressively encouraging Bitcoin mining by having – in his words — “all the remaining Bitcoin to be MADE IN THE USA;”
Creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve to eliminate the $35-plus trillion U.S. debt;
Preventing the creation of a central bank digital currency; and
Eliminating oppressive regulation in the crypto space by, in part, firing U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler “on day one.”

While not all campaign promises become reality, it is likely that the new Trump administration will take an aggressively supportive stance toward cryptocurrency.

2. The SEC Under Fire

On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump pledged to the industry that he will fire SEC Chair Gary Gensler “on day one.” We would expect that Trump will attempt to carry out this promise immediately.

Under Gensler, the SEC has classified many digital assets as securities and, as a result, brought and litigated multiple cases against major crypto exchanges, projects and developers for allegedly selling unregistered securities and other alleged violations. This has led to tension with the crypto industry, with complaints that the SEC is regulating the industry through enforcement, that the regulatory environment is not clear, and that these efforts have impeded innovation and development of the crypto economy.

Whether President Trump can actually or effectively fire Gensler immediately remains to be seen. Gensler’s term currently runs through June 5, 2026, and, having been appointed and confirmed by the Senate, he can only be fired for cause. But as p.resident in his first term, Trump demonstrated that he did not want to be bound by the niceties of the federal appointment process and would creatively work to achieve his ends.

3. Congressional Movement Towards Crypto-Friendly Legislation

The U.S. crypto industry has been pushing hard for regulatory clarity. While the executive branch can take significant steps to shape policy, legislative action will be crucial for ensuring the long-term stability and growth of the crypto industry.

During his presidential campaign, President Trump declared that he will be a pro-crypto president. But it is important to recognize that the crypto industry’s political efforts were not limited to the presidential race and, as a result, over 250 (self-proclaimed) “pro-crypto” candidates were elected to Congress.

Under a Trump-led government, we would expect to see a concerted effort from both the administration and Congress to pass legislation that recognizes cryptocurrency as a legitimate asset class and establishes clear rules for its use and taxation, building upon prior efforts such as the passage of the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act in May 2024 by the House. By highlighting the economic potential of crypto and the need for the U.S. to remain competitive in the global digital economy, the Trump administration could leverage the first truly pro-crypto Congress to pass crypto-friendly legislation that clarifies the legal framework for digital assets.

4. A 12-18 Month Timeline for Crypto Legitimization

Regardless of what happens with the SEC chair, if the Trump administration successfully drives legislative action, we could see significant changes within the next 12 to 18 months.

New legislation that brings regulatory clarity could create new opportunities in the following ways:

Open the door for traditional financial institutions, including banks and large investment firms, to participate more actively in the crypto space. These institutions have largely been sidelined due to regulatory uncertainty and the risk of non-compliance with existing laws. Once a clear legal framework is established, these institutions would have more incentive to offer crypto-related products and services, such as custody, trading, and even crypto-based financial products;
Retail investors could benefit from greater legitimacy and protections within the crypto market;
It could lead to a surge in retail adoption, further driving the price and mainstream acceptance of digital assets; and
Losses in crypto and blockchain development to Asian markets could be reversed and the U.S. could again become a haven for innovation in the crypto space.

Conclusion: Crypto’s Bright Future in a Trump Administration

In summary, a second term for Donald Trump could be a game-changer for the cryptocurrency industry in the U.S. With a pro-crypto stance, potential changes at the SEC, and the push for favorable legislation, the next 12 to 18 months could see crypto move from a fringe asset class to a mainstream financial tool. The Trump administration’s focus on deregulation and fostering innovation, combined with pressure from industry stakeholders and the broader financial sector, could help pave the way for a more robust and legitimate cryptocurrency market in the U.S.

June 29, 2021April 3, 2025 by C. Neil Gray

U.S. Federal Lawsuit by Mt. Gox Customers Cannot Proceed as a Class Action

On February 24, 2014, the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange went offline following a series of hacks through which tens of thousands of bitcoin were stolen. Following Mt. Gox’s collapse, regulators, prosecutors, and civil plaintiffs pursued Mt. Gox and related individuals to seek to hold responsible parties to account. Among those actions was a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported class of more than 30,000 Mt. Gox customers against, among others, Mt. Gox and Mark Karpeles (Mt. Gox’s principal). See Greene v. Karpeles, Case No. 14 Civ. 1437 (N.D. Ill.) (filed Feb. 27, 2014). The case has a lengthy history, but in its present incarnation it has one defendant—Karpeles—and a sole plaintiff—Greene—who sought to certify a class of Mt. Gox customers. On June 22, 2021, the Honorable Gary Feinerman denied that request. Click here for a copy of Judge Feinerman’s Memorandum Opinion and Order.

By way of background, in early 2012 Mt. Gox posted Terms of Use on its website. Mt. Gox customers were required to accept the Terms of Use as a condition of using the exchange. But that doesn’t mean that every customer read the Terms of Use when they accepted them, or any time thereafter for that matter. Plaintiff Greene contends he did, and that he relied on certain representations in the Terms of Use when he used the exchange. But to determine if every other member of the proposed class similarly read the Terms of Use would require making an individual inquiry of each of those purported class members.

And that gets to the heart of this decision. Class certification in federal court is governed by Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Before a class may be certified, it must satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a): “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” In addition, the proposed class must satisfy one of the categories in Rule 23(b); as applicable here, it must be “a case in which the common questions predominate and class treatment is superior.” Where the questions of law or fact common to class members do not predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, then the proposed class does not satisfy the predominance requirement.

In the Mt. Gox case, the underlying claim is one for common law fraud. “Greene’s theory of fraud is that the Mt. Gox Terms of Use falsely represented that Mt. Gox held all assets on its users’ behalf and that trades involved actual assets, that Karpales knew those representations were false and intended to deceive Mt. Gox users, and that the users kept assets on Mt. Gox in reliance on Karpeles’s misrepresentations.” (emphasis added). But in order to have relied on Karpeles’s misrepresentations, each member of the class must have read the Terms of Use, or at least have been aware of the relevant provisions of the Terms of Use, and that the relevant Terms influenced their actions. Absent a presumption of reliance applicable to the class—and no such presumption existed in this case—reliance is individualized, that is, the court would have to make a determination of reliance with respect to each member of the class individually. “Holding over thirty thousand mini-trials to determine how each class member understood and whether each class member relied upon a contract they accepted nearly a decade ago would present insurmountable difficulties.” Judge Feinerman concluded, as a result, that common issues do not predominate and, therefore, class certification was not appropriate.

Decisions granting or denying class certification often are fact specific and do not garner much attention beyond the case in which the decision is made. But the Mt. Gox case is worthy of note for at least two reasons. First, the decision is among a very small group of cases examining class certification in the crypto context. It is worthwhile to watch the development of the law in this nascent area. Second, and more practically, when a court grants certification in a class action, it is an important victory for the class because it often forces the defendants to come to the bargaining table and settle soon thereafter. Conversely, when defendants defeat class certification—which, absent a change on appeal or an amended pleading, means the case can move forward with only the named plaintiff—it is an important victory for the defendants because it drastically reduces the liability landscape the defendants face and often brings a fairly quick close to the litigation.