A groundbreaking study from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) claims that the US currently controls Bitcoin mining, controlling 75.4% of the world’s hash power. “The US has solidified its position as the largest global mining hub (75.4% of reported activities),” CCAF reports, based on a survey of 49 mining companies representing almost half of the Bitcoin network’s hashrate.
This concentration corresponds to approximately 600 exhahash (EH/s) per second of global 796 EH/s, but raises urgent concerns. What risk does Bitcoin mining pose for the future of new assets as dangerously centralized in the US?
U.S. Secretary of Commerce and former CEO of Canter Fitzgerald, Howard Lutnick recently shared insights into the Trump administration’s vision of positioning the US as a Bitcoin superpower. “It’s like gold for me. It’s a product,” Lutnick highlighted a fixed supply of 21 million coins in Bitcoin in an interview with Frank Colva of Bitcoin magazine. He outlined plans to “turbocharge” US mining through the Department of Commerce investment accelerator, which streamlines permits miners to build off-grid power plants. “You can build your own power plant next to the (data center), so think about it a little,” he said.
This professional business stance has fueled the US mining boom, but CCAF’s findings suggest a downside: centralization. For years, Bitcoiner was worried about China’s rule. This peaked at 65-75% of the global hashrate before the mining ban in June 2021. “In 2019, China dominated global Bitcoin mining, accounting for 65-75% of the total Bitcoin network.” Natural Communication Research notes. When China banned mining, hashrates were globally dispersed, with many operations relocating to the US and being drawn into states with abundant energy and favorable policies. This shift caused a 50% market correction, but paved the way for a 130% rise towards the end of the year, indicating market resilience.
China’s historic hashrate concentration never led to network abuse, but it was a constant concern. The same risks are emerging as the US currently owns 75% of its hashrate. The Trump administration is Bitcoin-friendly, but future administrations will become hostile and can take advantage of centralized hashrates to control the network. Unlike China’s ban, future US governments may attempt to regulate or manipulate mining using enforcement power like mining in censorship transactions to use threats amplified by concentrations of mining.
The US federal structure provides potential protections. A division of authority between the state and the federal government could allow resistance to federal government overreach. In states with important mining activities, officials and the public may argue that manipulating the industry harms the value of Bitcoin and affects investors. Such resistance can maintain the integrity of the network.
The weakening of the US financial sanctions regime may be in our interests. Following the 2022 seizure of the Russian Treasury, a nation that misaligned with US policies will reduce US bond purchases and undermine the Fiat Rail, which has been abused by sanctions. The Trump administration could move towards tariffs to manage goods rather than money flow, reducing the threat of financial censorship. Centralized hashrates could be a soft target for federal intervention, so this pivot will buy Bitcoin time.
Nevertheless, American Bitcoiners must be kept aggressive. Embed the adoption of Bitcoin in the economy widely can thwart censorship, as attacks on the network hurt individual wealth and drive backlash. History also shows that miners adapt when evacuated – China’s ban proved that – but the government learns. Future US administrations may not ban mining, try to control it, and leverage centralization.
The Bitcoin industry is facing a critical time. In the US, it is 75.4% of the hashrate, and even a low 50% estimate shows a large, looming concentration risk. Should we diversify globally or should we lean on the mining advantage in America? As Lutnick’s vision unfolds, Bitcoiner needs to ensure that this sovereign money remains resilient, regardless of who holds power.
