Only 2% of addresses hold 1 Bitcoin or more — Is this true?

[aesma]

The stats look at BTC present on addresses. It doesn't matter if the addresses are "active" or not. BTC that hasn't moved for a decade isn't necessarily lost, even if a lot of it probably is. I have used mixing services in the past to anonymise coins, that I've put on addresses, it's a lot of work, I don't plan to touch them for years. It doesn't mean the coins aren't "active".

[1715072926]

1715072926

[1715072926]

1715072926

[1715072926]

1715072926

[1715072926]

1715072926

[1715072926]

1715072926

[MCobian]

I really can't confirm that the data that says only 2% of addresses hold 1 Bitcoin is correct. But even though the data is proven correct,
maybe because some Bitcoin holders do store Bitcoin in more than one wallet. I also store Bitcoin in 5 different wallets, many things that
cause people to store Bitcoin in more than one wallet. I store Bitcoin in multiple wallets so as not to attract hackers, and until now I feel
safe doing that.

[samcrypto]

The stats look at BTC present on addresses. It doesn't matter if the addresses are "active" or not. BTC that hasn't moved for a decade isn't necessarily lost, even if a lot of it probably is. I have used mixing services in the past to anonymise coins, that I've put on addresses, it's a lot of work, I don't plan to touch them for years. It doesn't mean the coins aren't "active".

Looking at the volume of Bitcoin, it looks like every addresses are active since the market is getting better but of course some of the addresses are totally gone now and some are just holding their Bitcoin until it reaches their target goal.

1 Bitcoin is already a Million worth of Fiat money in my country so its really hard to see millionaire in my place who are holding Bitcoin, many are still small time investors that are hoping that Bitcoin can help us to become rich one day. No matter how much they are holding, as long as they adopt that can still affect the market.

[bryant.coleman]

It just means that the user base is increasing at a steady pace. 5-6 years back, the proportion of wallets holding 1 BTC would have been much higher. But many of the large-scale holders would have sold a part of their holdings and majority of the new users could not afford to purchase 1 BTC (the picture is a bit vague, because there are people who hold their coins in exchanges and third parties such as Grayscale). Even this 2% figure surprises me. In the coming years, it will definitely decrease.

[sujon5]

There are about 28 million non-zero Bitcoin addresses. Do you think 560k people holding 1BTC or more is a small number?

[_Miracle]

Back when I mined it was with at least 3 different pools at a time (each also serving as a failover to each other),
 each pool had a different address to send my payout to while using several different wallet types... and trying a half dozen exchanges.
For the person questioning Coinbase users: I’m not sure if it’s easier to set up an account now but when I did it (years ago) It was an effort, not something to do “casually” as opposed to using something like Cryptsy.

As an example for real use perspective: Coinbase created a new wallet address every time I spent from it so how many addresses are generated just as a one time transaction, or were created just for vanity generation are also interesting questions to add into the mix.

[justdimin]

It just means that the user base is increasing at a steady pace. 5-6 years back, the proportion of wallets holding 1 BTC would have been much higher. But many of the large-scale holders would have sold a part of their holdings and majority of the new users could not afford to purchase 1 BTC (the picture is a bit vague, because there are people who hold their coins in exchanges and third parties such as Grayscale). Even this 2% figure surprises me. In the coming years, it will definitely decrease.

I am not entirely sure if that is correct or not. I mean I do not refute the fact that there used to be a lot more whales and a lot of us had 1+ bitcoin, even I had 1+ bitcoin at a time I remember that and I wish I kept it and really not bothered by not keeping it but bothered by my lack of vision.

In any case the part where I am not really sure is if it is really 2% or not, we are talking about a period where even rich people are smarter now and divide their money because in crypto world everyone is equal and if you end up with a huge account with a lot of money in it, government will not protect you, there will be a million hackers trying to get in it. That is why I think it is quite obvious that we have a lot more than 2% who own 1+ bitcoins, but I do agree that it is still lower compared to 3-5-7 years ago which was a lot higher back in those days.

[qwertyup23]

I'm curious about some publications mentioning that "only 2% of the addresses holds 1 Bitcoin or more".

I found this to be quite surprising, since I always supposed longtime hodlers to be the larger segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem and not just a small fraction.

How accurate this data could be?

I do think that such data is accurate.

Remember that the insurgency on the price of bitcoin happened only on the years 2020-2021, in which most people are just staring to join the hype train. Some users who were able to receive bitcoin as early as on its initial stage are the ones whose wallets have more than 1 btc. I do think that such data is accurate and it shows that earning btc can be a relatively difficult task to obtain.

There are about 28 million non-zero Bitcoin addresses. Do you think 560k people holding 1BTC or more is a small number?

This is also true.

While 2% may seem 'low' facially, but the fact that there are millions of addresses globally make 2% a pretty huge number of people who own 1+ btc inside their respective wallets.

[bryant.coleman]

It just means that the user base is increasing at a steady pace. 5-6 years back, the proportion of wallets holding 1 BTC would have been much higher. But many of the large-scale holders would have sold a part of their holdings and majority of the new users could not afford to purchase 1 BTC (the picture is a bit vague, because there are people who hold their coins in exchanges and third parties such as Grayscale). Even this 2% figure surprises me. In the coming years, it will definitely decrease.

I am not entirely sure if that is correct or not. I mean I do not refute the fact that there used to be a lot more whales and a lot of us had 1+ bitcoin, even I had 1+ bitcoin at a time I remember that and I wish I kept it and really not bothered by not keeping it but bothered by my lack of vision.

In any case the part where I am not really sure is if it is really 2% or not, we are talking about a period where even rich people are smarter now and divide their money because in crypto world everyone is equal and if you end up with a huge account with a lot of money in it, government will not protect you, there will be a million hackers trying to get in it. That is why I think it is quite obvious that we have a lot more than 2% who own 1+ bitcoins, but I do agree that it is still lower compared to 3-5-7 years ago which was a lot higher back in those days.

Both the cases may be true. It may be true that the whales are dividing their holdings to smaller wallets. At the same time, there is no doubt that the user base has increased tremendously over the years. So the average holding per user can't be the same, because there is a limit on the circulating supply. Even if we assume that the old users are holding on to their coins, the overall proportion of such users will go down as more and more new users enter the market. And with the exchange rates about to touch the $50,000 mark, how many of them can afford 1 BTC?

[jerry0]

This doesn't take account of change addresses like in electrum right?  When i had btc there, i think btc was spread out between multiple addresses?  But with nano ledger s, its much different?

[amishmanish]

This is a quite a figure if you go by the number of addresses. The distribution looks completely insane. If you go by the bitcoinchartsinfo links, it is a disappointing picture.

This glassnode report circulating for the last week shows the distribution among holders too. According to it the shrimps, i.e., addresses that hold less than 1 BTC together hold just 4.9% of the total supply. The report then classifies holders into increasing BTC categories and shows how much of the total supply is held by the big fish.
So according to that. 52% of total coins are held by people who have 50 or more BTC. So whatever way you look at it, BTC clearly has a long way to go before real distribution. It may never really reach those levels.

[barbara44]

Not entirely sure about the legitimacy of the data but there is a common technique investors now use, which is to split their coins into multiple addresses and different wallets to ensure the safety. It is never the best idea to keep all your funds within the same address because although Bitcoin address is the last thing hackers would want to hack but in case they are somehow able to gain access they can empty it within minutes.

Also, with more Bitcoins in a single address means that there will be eyeballs on your address all the time and unwanted attention is always bad. I know a few guys in real life who invested heavy in Bitcoins a few years back and now they claim to not hold much but I know they have a lot of coins split among separate addresses.

[Mauser]

I'm curious about some publications mentioning that "only 2% of the addresses holds 1 Bitcoin or more".

I found this to be quite surprising, since I always supposed longtime hodlers to be the larger segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem and not just a small fraction.

How accurate this data could be?

I don't think all the data is avaliable for the general public. So there should definitely be some form of guessing and estimating be involved in determining who holds the most bitcoins. There might be some fund who show their bitcoin holdings but this is only a part of the overall market. Also there could be some rich families who are very keen on holding bitcoins but don't share their holdings publicly.

[SquallLeonhart]

I'm curious about some publications mentioning that "only 2% of the addresses holds 1 Bitcoin or more".

I found this to be quite surprising, since I always supposed longtime hodlers to be the larger segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem and not just a small fraction.

They might be right although I cannot prove that to you, but it’s possible that only just 2% are holding up to 1 BTC and above that, and I don’t see nothing wrong with it, because that even shows that Bitcoin is well spreading out and lots of people have their hands on it. There should be more people holding fractions of Bitcoin, than there are those holding big numbers, because when there are many of those holding in fractions it will help the market to stay more stable as the buying and selling wouldn’t be making it fluctuates that much.

But imagine that is the opposite, when those people actually decides to dump it the market will be affected too much. It’s mostly all these big institutions that holds huge amount, like that of Greyscale that is holding for investors and so many of them. I don’t even hold too much of it, because I am mindful of the risks.

[darewaller]

I really can't confirm that the data that says only 2% of addresses hold 1 Bitcoin is correct. But even though the data is proven correct, maybe because some Bitcoin holders do store Bitcoin in more than one wallet.

Another thing is that some investors keep their funds into exchanges like Binance and hence it is really impossible to track who holds how many bitcoins.

There are about 28 million non-zero Bitcoin addresses. Do you think 560k people holding 1BTC or more is a small number?

Not at all and actually I believe 2% is a massive number because if I would do a survey online and ask how many bitcoins they hold right now there would be like 1 answer among 100 who would say they have more than 1 bitcoin in a single address.

Note when we make transactions we don't send full amounts and the remaining amount in our wallet is then sent to another address. I mean the balance gets spread among several addresses quite quickly.

[Snappycoco]

I believe its inaccurate. I guess no one has data on how many have 1BTC in their address specially that some have their own storage. I think the 2% is just an speculation due to transactions recorded.

[Webetcoins]

I'm curious about some publications mentioning that "only 2% of the addresses holds 1 Bitcoin or more".

I found this to be quite surprising, since I always supposed longtime hodlers to be the larger segment of the Bitcoin ecosystem and not just a small fraction.

The less bitcoin rich people there are, the better, because we need equal wealth for everyone if possible, I understand that sounds like communism for many people but the reality is that I rather have communism instead of having billionaires who joke about meme coins during a pandemic that killed over 400k people and bankrupted over 10 million people, does that "capitalism" sounds better to you?

Having 10+ million people bankrupted and nearly half a million all dead while some jack ass rich guy jokes around every day without a worry? How is that an alternate for anything in the world?

I really do not get why people think that is fine, but I want bitcoin to bring that wealth gap a bit closer, don't know how much closer but closer nevertheless. That is why I believe there should be less than 1% people with 1+ bitcoins and everyone should have some, but there should be zero that owns more than 10k+ bitcoin as well yet that fails so far.

[uneng]

Two points to note:

• In December 2018 there were about 460 million bitcoin addresses (that was the most updated result I could find);
• So far we have 18,627,756 btc in circulation (including the lost ones);

So it's pretty normal you won't see a high percentage of addresses holding funds superior to 1 btc, as there are many addresses compared to the number of existing bitcoins. Furthermore, not all bitcoin investors will let their coins idle on the wallet. They invest their coins in different sites offering interest income over btc, reinforcing the services or businesses wallets which hold larger sums of bitcoin.

This 2% calculation isn't parameter for anything besides the fact bitcoin guarantees privacy (not anonymity) for its enthusiasts.

[oHnK]

This 2% calculation isn't parameter for anything besides the fact bitcoin guarantees privacy (not anonymity) for its enthusiasts.

I also see another reason that Bitcoin is owned by many people, not for long term investment where they have to hold onto their BTC for investment reasons. With very high price volatility, it does not make BTC a long-term type of investment but rather a short-term investment. They make BTC only as part of their speculation, so it is only natural that only 2% percent of people actually hold BTC. Because the rest makes this one of the reasons.

[uneng]

This 2% calculation isn't parameter for anything besides the fact bitcoin guarantees privacy (not anonymity) for its enthusiasts.

I also see another reason that Bitcoin is owned by many people, not for long term investment where they have to hold onto their BTC for investment reasons. With very high price volatility, it does not make BTC a long-term type of investment but rather a short-term investment. They make BTC only as part of their speculation, so it is only natural that only 2% percent of people actually hold BTC. Because the rest makes this one of the reasons.

That is true, there is also those investors who don't take the risk for a long period of time and I believe some early adopters thought this way, exchanging considerable amounts of their btcs to fiat after huge increasements in bitcoin price. Just imagine someone who invested or even claimed free bitcoin at faucets in 2013 or so, when it was pricing 13$ dollars.
After only 4 years this person would be millionaire by selling his bitcoins for 17,000$ or 18,000$. I think many here would do the same if they had the chance of doing so.

Events like this helped spliting bitcoin among different hands, especially new investors, instead of concentrating too many coins in few hands. That is a good thing.