Bitcoin Policy Institute Seeks Role in New York Suit Over 39,069 Dormant Bitcoin Addresses

Why BPI wants to intervene

BPI filed its motion to intervene as a defendant on July 10. In a sworn affirmation, managing director Conner Brown said the institute keeps part of its treasury in a self-custodied “Long-Term Reserve” with no intention of moving the bitcoin for years at a time. He argued that those holdings share the same characteristics as the “Abandoned Wallets” described in the lawsuit.

According to Brown, a win for the plaintiffs could create pressure on BPI to give up self-custody and move its bitcoin to a third-party custodian to avoid similar claims in the future. BPI’s proposed answer disputes most of the amended complaint’s core allegations and sets out fifteen affirmative defenses. Among them are arguments that bitcoin addresses are not “property” under New York Personal Property Law, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over anonymous wallet holders around the world, and that Noah Doe did not become a legal “finder” merely by providing a list of public addresses to police.

Rachel Rodman, a White & Case partner representing BPI, also told the court that the group is seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss before filing a formal answer. BPI separately confirmed the move on X, saying it intervened to protect bitcoin it holds long term.

Dispute over amicus participation

A parallel fight in the case concerns attorney Ian Cohen, who sought permission in May to file an amicus brief opposing the lawsuit. On July 7, Noah Doe’s attorney asked the court to reject that request, arguing Cohen’s submission offers little legal value and relies too heavily on policy arguments rather than judicial authority.

The plaintiffs’ filing also challenged Cohen’s claimed expertise and accused him of using the litigation for self-promotion. Supporting exhibits, according to the source article, included references to a podcast appearance published shortly after his amicus motion, as well as social media posts promoting a speaking event and encouraging people to attend the July 14 hearing. The plaintiffs further asked the court to lift a stay triggered by Cohen’s filing and to strike an opposition brief he submitted on June 19 without first seeking permission.

Broader pushback emerges

BPI is not the only outside organization showing interest in the case. The Digital Chamber filed a notice of appearance on July 9 through attorney Stephen D. Palley of Brown Rudnick. The article says that filing signaled the trade group’s interest in the outcome, though it did not describe any further request by the organization.

At the same time, a pseudonymous wallet holder identified as John Doe 33 has become the first named defendant to challenge the suit directly, filing a motion to dismiss on June 30. The plaintiffs’ abandonment theory has also been complicated by on-chain activity since the case became public. The source article says several of the named wallets moved bitcoin in recent weeks, including a 500 BTC transfer on July 2.

What the July 14 hearing could decide

Justice King is set to hear oral argument on July 14 at 10:30 a.m. at 60 Centre Street. The hearing is expected to cover Cohen’s amicus application, the status of the stay, John Doe 33’s motion to dismiss, and BPI’s request to intervene.

The hearing is not expected to resolve the underlying claim over ownership of the addresses. It will, however, help determine which parties and outside voices can participate as the lawsuit moves ahead. With BPI, the Digital Chamber, Cohen, and at least one wallet holder now involved, the case has become more contested than it first appeared.