CoinDesk Debunks Jim Cramer’s Claim That U.S. Will Buy Bitcoin at $60K
CoinDesk has refuted CNBC host Jim Cramer’s claim that the U.S. government would begin buying Bitcoin if prices hit $60,000. Legal and policy analysis shows federal agencies lack statutory authority to make discretionary cryptocurrency purchases for reserves; existing federal Bitcoin holdings—about $23 billion—derive solely from law-enforcement seizures and judicial forfeiture, not market acquisitions. The Treasury cannot unilaterally buy Bitcoin without congressional authorization, and proposed bills such as the CLARITY Act do not grant purchase power. Experts cited by CoinDesk stress constitutional and appropriations constraints, custody and market-impact challenges, and the need for explicit legislation to enable government reserves in crypto. State-level initiatives (Wyoming, Texas, Florida, Colorado) are experimenting with crypto policy, but cannot override federal law. Internationally, some countries (El Salvador, Ukraine, Singapore, Switzerland) have taken differing approaches to government crypto holdings. The article emphasizes journalistic responsibility in crypto reporting and concludes that Cramer’s $60K government-purchase scenario lacks legal or procedural basis. Primary keywords: Bitcoin, government purchase, CoinDesk, Jim Cramer. Secondary keywords: Treasury authority, law enforcement seizures, CLARITY Act, state crypto policy.
Neutral
The article corrects a market-sensitive media claim rather than announcing new policy or government buying. Debunking Jim Cramer’s suggestion removes a potential bullish narrative (expectation of government demand at $60K) but does not introduce fresh regulatory tightening or market-moving legislation. Short-term: removal of speculative buying narratives can reduce hype-driven volatility and limit sudden price spikes tied to that rumor. Traders who had positioned for government intervention may unwind leveraged positions, causing modest selling pressure. Long-term: the clarification reinforces existing market fundamentals—federal holdings come from seizures and auctions—so it neither weakens Bitcoin’s structural case nor creates new systemic risk. If future legislation were proposed, that would be market-moving; absent that, impact remains neutral. Historical parallels: market reactions to debunked rumors (e.g., false ETF or major corporate treasury-buy rumors) typically produce temporary volatility but no sustained trend change unless followed by policy action. Recommended trader actions: avoid positioning solely on speculative media claims, monitor legislative developments (Congress, CLARITY Act), and watch on-chain and auction supply flows from seized assets.