The news heat in the crypto circle today has directly overshadowed BTC's intraday volatility. The once-commonly heard promise of "Bitcoin's strategic reserve will never be sold" has now been treated as worthless paper by the U.S. Department of Justice. Over $6 million worth of BTC was sold off—still liquidated directly from seized assets. Bitcoin Magazine has confirmed the details, causing the market to fall into a state of confusion.

Let's first give new followers some background. In early 2025, the Trump administration signed an executive order officially establishing BTC as a strategic reserve. The宣传 rhetoric at the time was as loud as possible: "Never sell, as a means of national value storage." The authorities even calculated that early sales would cause the U.S. taxpayers a loss of about $17 billion. It is estimated that the U.S. government accumulated approximately 200,000 BTC. During that period, the market experienced several rounds of fluctuations driven by expectations of this "national team entry."

Looking back now, the half-life of this policy promise is even shorter than BTC's short-term correction cycle. A typical "wolf is coming" repeat.

This time, the Department of Justice's "disobedient liquidation" actually reflects deeper issues. From a regulatory perspective, at least three noteworthy angles can be observed:

**Policy consistency shows cracks**

Trump’s executive order explicitly states: BTC in the strategic reserve is strictly prohibited from being sold, and assets seized must be stored. Now, the DOJ bypasses this red line and liquidates directly, fundamentally exposing internal contradictions in the U.S. approach to crypto asset regulation. On one hand, they want to use BTC as part of the strategic reserve to compete for digital financial discourse; on the other hand, they cannot suppress their desire for liquidity. How long can this "tug-of-war" last?

**A litmus test for market confidence**

For retail and institutional investors, the consistent expectation of government policy is the basis for pricing. Now, this face-slapping reversal has directly triggered concerns about policy stability. Especially for funds built on the logic of "national team support," this move is like a punch to the gut.

**Questions about regulatory transparency**

Why is it the Department of Justice leading the asset seizure disposal? Why is there no clearer public procedure explanation? The lack of these details often causes more systemic market concerns than the decision itself.

All in all, this incident may put short-term pressure on the industry, but in the long run, it exposes the real contradictions in policy-making—perhaps this is a good thing for future institutional design. At least, everyone now has a clearer idea of the "shelf life" of promises.