China’s new report says Washington is harvesting global crypto. Here’s what the evidence actually shows

As digital assets swell into a multi-trillion-dollar market, a new report alleges Washington has turned blockchain into an instrument of strategic financial power, U.S. officials say it’s simply law enforcement catching up with code.

A February 2026 report titled “Ready Player One: An In-Depth Analysis of the Global Virtual Currency Asset Harvesting Operation Under U.S. Technological Hegemony”, published by China’s National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center and affiliated laboratories, alleges that US technological hegemony in crypto has evolved into a coordinated system of surveillance, jurisdictional reach, and strategic asset capture.

The report’s central claim is stark: that US technological hegemony in crypto operates through a triangular structure of “technological superiority, regulation blockade, enforcement actions,” enabling Washington to monitor, freeze, seize, and structurally influence global virtual assets .

U.S. authorities strongly reject any suggestion of “harvesting,” describing their actions as legitimate anti-money laundering, sanctions enforcement, and investor protection.

At the heart of the dispute are two defining cases: Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi and Binance founder.

From “money laundering tool” to “digital gold”

The report begins by acknowledging crypto’s scale. As of January 2026, global digital currency assets reached $2.73 trillion in market value, nearly half the value of global official gold reserves, according to data cited in the report .

In March 2025, the White House announced the creation of a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve and described Bitcoin as “digital gold,” marking a symbolic pivot in U.S. posture toward the asset class.

The authors argue that this shift reflects more than regulatory maturation. They contend that US technological hegemony in crypto is integrating blockchain into a broader dollar-centric financial architecture — effectively building what they call a “Digital Dollar Hegemony 2.0”.

“Leveraging its technological superiority and regulatory authority,” the report states, the U.S. has incorporated global virtual currency transactions into a cross-border enforcement system based on long-arm jurisdiction .

U.S. regulators, by contrast, frame the evolution as pragmatic oversight of a maturing asset class increasingly linked to illicit finance and sanctions evasion.

Chen Zhi and the $15 billion seizure

In October 2025, prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York charged Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi in connection with alleged online fraud and money laundering. Authorities announced the confiscation of approximately 127,000 Bitcoin valued around $15 billion at the time marking the largest virtual asset seizure in U.S. judicial history.

The report portrays the case as a model of US technological hegemony in crypto, describing a closed-loop sequence of technological intrusion, regulatory coordination, and enforcement action.

It further cites a separate November 2025 technical analysis alleging that U.S. state-sponsored actors exploited cryptographic vulnerabilities in the LuBian mining pool in 2020 and transferred assets later subject to forfeiture . U.S. authorities have not publicly acknowledged any such operation.

For U.S. prosecutors, the seizure was the outcome of a financial crime investigation. For the report’s authors, it exemplifies how US technological hegemony in crypto allegedly converts cyber capability into jurisdictional control.

Binance, CZ, and compliance under pressure

Between 2023 and 2025, U.S. authorities pursued civil and criminal actions against Binance and its founder . The case concluded with a $4.35 billion settlement, including forfeiture, civil penalties, and personal fines.

The report describes the enforcement pattern as “rule presupposition, technical evidence collection, penalty harvesting,” arguing that US technological hegemony in crypto relies heavily on cyber surveillance and blockchain analytics to secure evidence .

Among the mechanisms cited:

• Real-time monitoring of transaction data through blockchain node connectivity
• Collaboration with U.S.-led on-chain analytics firms dominating global traceability markets
• Analysis of compliance systems and KYC procedures to identify vulnerabilities

U.S. authorities have publicly stated that Binance failed to implement adequate anti-money laundering controls and allowed U.S. users to bypass compliance safeguards. From Washington’s perspective, the case reinforced a straightforward principle: if you serve U.S. customers, U.S. law applies.

Critics, however, argue that US technological hegemony in crypto enables extraterritorial enforcement that effectively compels global exchanges to align with American regulatory standards.

The infrastructure layer: analytics dominance and stablecoins

The report argues that US technological hegemony in crypto rests not only on court actions but on structural control over infrastructure.

Blockchain analytics dominance

U.S.-based firms, the report states, control over 90% of the global on-chain traceability market . This analytic dominance allegedly provides a “God’s eye view” of transaction flows, transforming pseudonymous ledgers into actionable enforcement intelligence.

Stablecoin regulation and Treasury integration

The report also highlights the 2025 GENIUS Act, which it says requires stablecoin issuers to allocate more than 80% of reserves to U.S. Treasury securities. According to the authors, this effectively binds stablecoin liquidity to U.S. sovereign debt markets, reinforcing dollar demand and embedding US technological hegemony in crypto within digital settlement rails.

U.S. lawmakers describe such reserve requirements as financial stability safeguards designed to prevent systemic shocks.

Sanctions, SWIFT alternatives, and long-arm jurisdiction

The report’s analysis extends to sanctions enforcement, including the Garantex case, where the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the exchange and coordinated wallet freezes.

It argues that US technological hegemony in crypto operates through:

• Administrative sanctions
• Judicial forfeiture
• Stablecoin wallet freezes
• Domain and infrastructure seizures
• International arrest coordination

By combining on-chain tracking with traditional judicial procedures, the report claims, U.S. authorities extend domestic law beyond borders.

American officials counter that sanctions enforcement is a sovereign right, particularly when platforms facilitate transactions linked to terrorism financing, ransomware, or geopolitical adversaries.

Asset forfeiture and the strategic reserve question

The report further links US technological hegemony in crypto to asset forfeiture revenue and strategic reserves. It notes that previously seized Bitcoin, including assets from the 2013 Silk Road case, generated more than $10 billion in auction proceeds between 2014 and January 2025 .

It also states that confiscations in virtual asset cases between 2022 and 2025 exceeded $30 billion .

According to the authors, judicial forfeiture has been reframed as a “zero-cost strategy” for building national strategic digital assets .

U.S. authorities describe asset forfeiture as a long-standing legal tool to strip criminals of illicit gains.

Financial imperialism or necessary oversight?

The debate over US technological hegemony in crypto ultimately hinges on interpretation.

Supporters of U.S. enforcement argue that:

• Crypto markets require rule-of-law integration.
• Sanctions and AML compliance protect global financial stability.
• Stablecoin regulation reduces systemic risk.

Critics argue that:

• Extraterritorial enforcement consolidates American regulatory dominance.
• Stablecoin-Treasury linkages entrench dollar hegemony.
• Blockchain analytics centralization undermines decentralization’s promise.

The report frames these dynamics as an extension of long-standing U.S. monetary power structures. U.S. officials frame them as modernization of financial oversight.

The open questions for a decentralized future

Whether one views it as law enforcement or financial statecraft, the contours of US technological hegemony in crypto are reshaping the digital asset landscape.

• Can a decentralized financial system function independently if its liquidity backbone remains dollar-based?
• If blockchain analytics firms are concentrated in one jurisdiction, does transparency become asymmetric power?
• And if sovereigns can strategically reserve, auction, freeze, and confiscate digital assets at scale, what does decentralization truly mean?

As crypto matures from insurgent technology to strategic asset class, those questions may define not only the future of digital finance but the balance of power within it.