A congressional hearing in the United States unexpectedly ignited market sentiment in the crypto space. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was questioned by California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman: “When Bitcoin prices plummet significantly, does the federal government have the authority to step in and ‘rescue Bitcoin’?” This question quickly spread on social media platforms, making “whether Bitcoin has government backing” a hot topic of discussion.
In response to the inquiry, Bessent clearly stated that, whether in his capacity as Treasury Secretary or as Chair of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, he has no authority to use public resources to support Bitcoin prices, nor can he instruct banks to buy the asset. This statement effectively reaffirmed to the market that Bitcoin is not protected by the U.S. government, and investment risks are entirely borne by individuals.
Currently, Bitcoin has fallen more than 40% from its all-time high and is below the high range set earlier in 2026. Bessent’s response was interpreted as a “risk-off signal,” and Bitcoin briefly weakened again during the trading session. Unlike traditional financial institutions that can receive policy support during crises, crypto assets remain in a “self-reliant” state.
It is worth noting that Bessent also mentioned another reality: some Bitcoin seized and held by U.S. law enforcement has generated substantial paper gains as prices rose. This is not an investment activity but passive holding, which also indirectly reflects Bitcoin’s high volatility.
In the latter part of the hearing, political friction intensified. New York Congressman Gregory Meeks engaged in a heated debate with Bessent over investigations into crypto companies linked to Trump, with the scene once becoming chaotic. These episodes highlight that, under the current regulatory framework, legislators still find it difficult to effectively address the boundaries between crypto assets and traditional finance.
For investors, this congressional dialogue sends a clear signal: Bitcoin will not receive a “safety net” at the federal level. Without policy intervention, price volatility may continue, and the market can only rely on its own supply, demand, and sentiment regulation. This also once again underscores the fundamental differences between decentralized assets and traditional financial systems.
Disclaimer: The information on this page may come from third parties and does not represent the views or opinions of Gate. The content displayed on this page is for reference only and does not constitute any financial, investment, or legal advice. Gate does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information and shall not be liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Virtual asset investments carry high risks and are subject to significant price volatility. You may lose all of your invested principal. Please fully understand the relevant risks and make prudent decisions based on your own financial situation and risk tolerance. For details, please refer to
Disclaimer.
Related Articles
BTC 15-minute drop of 0.58%: Large on-chain withdrawals and bearish derivatives sentiment coincide to weigh on the price
From 2026-04-12 22:00 to 22:15 (UTC), the BTC price fluctuated between 70693.8 and 71371.8 USDT. During this period, the candlestick return rate recorded -0.58%, and the amplitude reached 0.95%. The short-term downside caused market attention to rise rapidly, and some investors accelerated adjustments to their hedging positions.
The main drivers behind this change were concentrated on-chain large-fund outflows and a short-term defensive shift in the derivatives market. On-chain data shows that net outflow transactions of large funds $100k and above totaled more than 800 BTC in aggregate from exchanges; meanwhile, the exchanges’ overall BTC holdings
GateNews32m ago
The New York Times reignites the “Satoshi identity mystery”; after Adam Back was targeted, he quickly clarified
Author: Nancy, PANews
Satoshi Nakamoto’s real identity remains the mystery that has continued for 17 years in the crypto world. Guesses surrounding this pseudonym have never stopped—candidates ranging from cryptographers to company founders have come and gone, yet there has always been a lack of decisive evidence.
Recently, The New York Times published a 10,000-plus-word investigation. Based on multiple comparisons drawn from language style, technical paths, and historical context, it ranked Blockstream CEO Adam Back as the strongest candidate for Satoshi Nakamoto. However, this claim was quickly and explicitly denied by Back himself, and the relevant arguments were widely questioned by the industry as difficult to substantiate.
Satoshi Nakamoto identity controversy flares up again; the 10,000-plus-word investigation targets Adam Back
In this investigation, New York Times reporter John Carreyrou spent more than a year deeply sorting through decades of archives and the cypherpunk email mailing lists to
区块客3h ago
