A revived Wall Street entity, claiming ties to the historic Salomon Brothers, has sparked controversy after attempting to claim ownership of more than $150 billion worth of “abandoned” Bitcoin. The move has triggered confusion, debate, and wallet activity across the crypto community as thousands of addresses suddenly received on-chain notices demanding proof of ownership.
The Return of “Salomon Brothers” and a Bitcoin Controversy
According to reports, a group of investors purchased the rights to the Salomon Brothers brand — a legendary Wall Street bank that ceased operations over two decades ago. These new owners have since used the name to pursue an unusual legal experiment: reclaiming allegedly “abandoned” Bitcoin through on-chain messages.
The revived firm reportedly sent tiny transactions, or “dust,” to nearly 40,000 Bitcoin wallets, containing messages that instructed holders to verify activity within 90 days or risk facing potential legal action. Collectively, the targeted wallets contained more than 2.33 million BTC, valued at around $150 billion at current market prices.
Bitcoin Owners Caught Off Guard
This incident, widely interpreted as a dusting attack, immediately captured the attention of crypto analysts and traders. Dusting attacks typically involve sending small amounts of cryptocurrency to wallets in an attempt to track or identify their owners. However, in this case, the motive appeared legal rather than malicious — though no less unsettling.
One notable wallet, reportedly holding nearly $9.7 billion in Bitcoin, moved its funds shortly after receiving the message. The large-scale reaction fueled speculation about how many of these wallets were still active and under legitimate ownership.
While the campaign raised eyebrows, it also reignited discussions about unclaimed Bitcoin — tokens that remain untouched for years and may belong to lost wallets or deceased owners. Analysts estimate that between 3 to 4 million BTC may be permanently lost, representing roughly 20% of the total supply.
The Legal Gambit: Can Bitcoin Be Claimed?
The so-called Salomon Brothers firm defended its actions by stating that its mission was to enhance on-chain security and bring clarity to the issue of inactive wallets. In a statement, a company representative claimed that “securing wallets protects the millions of wallets that are not abandoned,” and that their approach aimed to “support the integrity of crypto markets.”
The company also cited existing unclaimed property laws in several jurisdictions, arguing that cryptocurrencies with no sign of ownership could, in theory, fall under these regulations. Their apparent goal is to set a legal precedent allowing firms or governments to claim such assets in the future.
However, the plan faces overwhelming obstacles — both technical and legal. Experts argue that without the private keys controlling the wallets, no entity can realistically take ownership of Bitcoin, regardless of court rulings. Moreover, Bitcoin’s decentralized design makes it immune to seizure unless owners voluntarily sign over control.
Experts: “Virtually Zero Chance of Success”
Legal and blockchain analysts have dismissed the initiative as impractical and unenforceable. Because Bitcoin exists beyond national boundaries, attempting to assert ownership through traditional legal systems would be extraordinarily complex.
Even if the firm succeeded in winning a case in one jurisdiction, it would have no way to compel Bitcoin’s blockchain to recognize that ownership. Furthermore, the sheer scope of the effort — involving 40,000 wallets across countless countries — makes the plan effectively impossible to execute.
Critics suggest that the move may instead be a publicity stunt or a way to provoke minor settlements in favorable legal environments. Others believe it could serve as a test case for exploring how future courts might handle claims over lost or inactive digital assets.
Bitcoin’s Decentralized Design Proves Its Strength
This incident underscores one of Bitcoin’s defining principles: self-custody and decentralization. No central authority or company can unilaterally seize funds without private key access. As a result, even large legal institutions have no power to control or claim Bitcoin holdings they do not own.
The episode has also reminded crypto users to maintain security and activity on their wallets, as inactivity may attract unwanted attention. Still, blockchain experts stress that there is no legal or technical mechanism that would allow any firm — regardless of reputation — to appropriate funds directly on-chain.
What This Means for Bitcoin Holders
For now, Bitcoin owners can rest assured that their holdings remain secure as long as their private keys are safe. The blockchain’s immutable and borderless design makes it nearly impossible for external parties to claim ownership, regardless of legal maneuvers.
The “Salomon Brothers” episode may ultimately fade as a curious footnote in Bitcoin’s history, highlighting how traditional finance continues to misunderstand the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies. Nonetheless, it opens an interesting conversation about digital inheritance, unclaimed assets, and how regulators might eventually address long-lost crypto holdings.
Final Outlook
While the revived Wall Street entity’s plan has stirred controversy, experts widely agree that Bitcoin’s ownership model remains intact and unchallengeable. The blockchain’s architecture ensures that control rests solely with private key holders — rendering attempts to seize or reassign “abandoned” Bitcoin legally meaningless.
Post Views: 106
