Global Bitcoin Ownership

[uchegod-21]

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations since Strategy is raising billions of dollars through their STRC dividend offer to investors to buy more Bitcoin almost every 2 months (funny enough, some Bitcoiners are celebrating their accumulation)?

I am glad that self-custody still has the highest percentage here, but I also won't fail to express my concern if 51% of Bitcoin ends up in the hands of institutional investors. I know we all agree that owning that amount of Bitcoin does not mean one can control the Bitcoin network, but the government can actually creep in if the ratio of Bitcoin held on centralized platforms becomes higher than that held by individuals. The effects will be seen in governments mounting pressure on institutions, withdrawals being restricted at will, Bitcoin being seized, and many other consequences that will make Bitcoin seem like it is beginning to behave like the traditional banking system. Whether we see that as control or not, the effect is not a good one.

Is there any solution to this?

Yes, those enthusiastic about Bitcoin should prioritize self-custody over anything else.

[EL MOHA]

Maybe we should make the definition a little clearer about exchange, miner, and also individual/private ownership. 56.2% for me is too much if it is kept in self-custodial manner (unless in this case satoshi's alleged wallets are also counted). Does it also mean individual ownership status in a centralized wallet? Legally, the bitcoins that users deposit belong to the user.

I think the individual and private ownership is basically those self custody wallets which actually has coins regardless of who owns it as long as it’s don’t directly known to be affiliated with any company. Satoshi funds are also part of this private or self custody ownerships plus its also has wallets from miners too and most importantly it will comprises of those early investor wallets. Even if I don’t agree completely with the stats I do think more than halve of  circulating bitcoin should be in that category or ownership.

The bigger issue here if you ask me is dependence on custodians. If Bitcoiners stop valuing self-custody, that'll give regulators and institutions more influence over how people access Bitcoin.

And sadly this is actually happening more now with some companies even threatening for asset declarations and this actually bad in my opinion. People actually go for centralized exchanges this days than self custody when holding their coins, that’s why even ETF has this huge investors anyways

[_act_]

At the same time it is not good at all.  Volatility is one of the main reasons a lot of people love Bitcoin.  We are hoping for Bitcoin to be less volatile so companies can join but is this really what we want only to get the attention from companies?  Is a stable Bitcoin really better than a volatile one?

Bitcoin will always be volatile, but the volatility will only be reduced. We like or we do not like, this is what will happen as bitcoin is getting more mature and it has been what is happening since when bitcoin was created, there has always been reducing volatility. To get 10x right now can be up to or more than 10 years, but we are still going there.

[Minor Miner]

The bigger issue here if you ask me is dependence on custodians. If Bitcoiners stop valuing self-custody, that'll give regulators and institutions more influence over how people access Bitcoin.

And sadly this is actually happening more now with some companies even threatening for asset declarations and this actually bad in my opinion. People actually go for centralized exchanges this days than self custody when holding their coins, that’s why even ETF has this huge investors anyways

One thing most people will not admit is that profit is the real reason they get into the market, not the pursuit of financial freedom or privacy as they claim.
In reality, most people still prioritize profit and convenience over financial sovereignty. That is why people prefer using centralized services and platforms like CEX and ETF.

I would not even be surprised if banks started offering Bitcoin custody services, more investor flock to them instead of self-custody.

[Chinesebaby]

One thing most people will not admit is that profit is the real reason they get into the market, not the pursuit of financial freedom or privacy as they claim.
In reality, most people still prioritize profit and convenience over financial sovereignty. That is why people prefer using centralized services and platforms like CEX and ETF.

I would not even be surprised if banks started offering Bitcoin custody services, more investor flock to them instead of self-custody.

That's true, and it's simply because of ignorance or lack of knowledge about what Bitcoin actually stands for that will make the lot of people who will flock into investing in our traditional banks Bitcoin custody services. Because I'm sure it will be hard for anybody on this forum who has known the importance of private key and how its a good way to have full control over your bitcoin to do such a thing. Because one thing that I'm sure will make people flock into this is simply because of the volatile nature of Bitcoin. Where institutional investors will be scared of liquidity.

[Hypnotizer]

Wow…

16.7% of the total supply of Bitcoin lost! That’s really a huge amount of supply around 3.5 million out of 21 million forever lost of inaccessible. That’s really an incredible things for the people holding bitcoin, and my condolences to the people that’s lost theirs one way or the other.

It’s really good to know that individual owning bitcoins are still much more than the all these institutions and treasuries buying bitcoins aggressively for almost the past five years.

[purple_sparkles]

One thing most people will not admit is that profit is the real reason they get into the market, not the pursuit of financial freedom or privacy as they claim.
In reality, most people still prioritize profit and convenience over financial sovereignty. That is why people prefer using centralized services and platforms like CEX and ETF.

I would not even be surprised if banks started offering Bitcoin custody services, more investor flock to them instead of self-custody.

That's true, and it's simply because of ignorance or lack of knowledge about what Bitcoin actually stands for that will make the lot of people who will flock into investing in our traditional banks Bitcoin custody services. Because I'm sure it will be hard for anybody on this forum who has known the importance of private key and how its a good way to have full control over your bitcoin to do such a thing. Because one thing that I'm sure will make people flock into this is simply because of the volatile nature of Bitcoin. Where institutional investors will be scared of liquidity.

I think profit is a significant reason why people invest bitcoin in banks,if they will provide such a service. If banks offer a good deposit interest rate, for example, then people will use this resource. Questions of privacy and control are not important for everyone, so not all people worry about this topic.But if those same people start facing situations where banks begin interfering in their affairs and telling them how and under what conditions they can use their own money, then their attitude will immediately change.

[Smartprofit]

The bigger issue here if you ask me is dependence on custodians. If Bitcoiners stop valuing self-custody, that'll give regulators and institutions more influence over how people access Bitcoin.

And sadly this is actually happening more now with some companies even threatening for asset declarations and this actually bad in my opinion. People actually go for centralized exchanges this days than self custody when holding their coins, that’s why even ETF has this huge investors anyways

One thing most people will not admit is that profit is the real reason they get into the market, not the pursuit of financial freedom or privacy as they claim.
In reality, most people still prioritize profit and convenience over financial sovereignty. That is why people prefer using centralized services and platforms like CEX and ETF.

I would not even be surprised if banks started offering Bitcoin custody services, more investor flock to them instead of self-custody.

In my opinion, to truly love freedom and independence, you'd have to end up in a concentration camp. 🙋

Yes, I agree that many people are currently pursuing profit rather than financial freedom. However, the situation could change dramatically when central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are implemented in their countries. People could face a situation where they no longer have real money, but only certificates for purchasing a certain set of goods and services. Or when their pseudo-money is frozen due to their "bad" behavior or simply by an algorithmic decision. Or when they urgently need to leave their country (where a war has broken out). They will discover that their bitcoins, stored in a centralized vault, cannot be transferred to a non-custodial wallet (or used outside a certain geographic area).

By the way, I've read Satoshi Nakamoto's posts on our forum and don't recall him ever mentioning that bitcoins could be owned not only by individuals but also by corporations and governments.  I think he simply never imagined such a scenario! Because the world was completely different back then. Now we see that all the major organizations that hold Bitcoin prefer to store their coins centrally. This directly affects the interests of miners (who, in turn, ensure the security of the Bitcoin network). So, this is very bad. 🤷

[BitBakerr1]

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations since Strategy is raising billions of dollars through their STRC dividend offer to investors to buy more Bitcoin almost every 2 months (funny enough, some Bitcoiners are celebrating their accumulation)?

If companies are buying bitcoin, it is good. It is making bitcoin scarce and it can reduce bitcoin volatile so that more people can see bitcoin as a store of value. Although it will be good if more companies are buying so that it will not concentrate more as few companies asset.

You can see how countries are buying gold, they will still buy bitcoin like that. We are moving closer to the day this will begin rapidly.

I agree with you, I believe as time goes on more companies will be accumulating bitcoin and hold, those companies that has seen the potential of bitcoin and starts accumulating and holding now will be the people that will enjoy it more in the future, I think it’s not just few companies that are accumulating bitcoin and holding some companies are doing it secretly it’s not all companies that announce to the public that they are into bitcoin investment some companies just keeps it secret.

It will be difficult for many country to accumulate bitcoin and hold or go into bitcoin investment because of the wrong mindset that bitcoin will destroy their economy, many countries has wrong mindset about bitcoin and this is one of the reasons why countries are finding it hard to invest in bitcoin.

[Vlatlume]

If companies are buying bitcoin, it is good. It is making bitcoin scarce and it can reduce bitcoin volatile so that more people can see bitcoin as a store of value. Although it will be good if more companies are buying so that it will not concentrate more as few companies asset.

You can see how countries are buying gold, they will still buy bitcoin like that. We are moving closer to the day this will begin rapidly.

I agree with you, I believe as time goes on more companies will be accumulating bitcoin and hold, those companies that has seen the potential of bitcoin and starts accumulating and holding now will be the people that will enjoy it more in the future, I think it’s not just few companies that are accumulating bitcoin and holding some companies are doing it secretly it’s not all companies that announce to the public that they are into bitcoin investment some companies just keeps it secret.

It will be difficult for many country to accumulate bitcoin and hold or go into bitcoin investment because of the wrong mindset that bitcoin will destroy their economy, many countries has wrong mindset about bitcoin and this is one of the reasons why countries are finding it hard to invest in bitcoin.

when companies buy bitcoin, it reduces the amount available in the market, which can support the price over time and help strengthen bitcoins role as a store of value. the only concern is concentration, if too much btc ends up in the hands of a few large companies it gives them more influence over the market. and you're right, some companies may already be accumulating quietly without making public announcements. as for governments, many are still cautious because they dont fully understand bitcoin or worry about losing control over monetary policy. but as adoption grows, I think more countries will eventually start treating bitcoin the same way they treat gold reserves.

[Lucius]

Wow…
16.7% of the total supply of Bitcoin lost! That’s really a huge amount of supply around 3.5 million out of 21 million forever lost of inaccessible.
~snip~

That's just an estimate, and in my opinion, a very bad one. It has been many years since stories started circulating about millions of BTC being lost, and one had its foundations in the so-called research that coins are lost if they have not moved from the address for at least 4 years (if memory serves me correctly).

This cannot be evidence that should be taken seriously, because over the years many of those "lost" coins have moved, or someone has signed messages from very old addresses.

[d5000]

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations [...]?

That tendency could continue for a time, but I think it has a limit.

First, if volatility declines further, Bitcoin will be less attractive for some investor groups, who mostly should be customers of centralized platforms (either exchanges or MSTR-style treasuries, or ETFs).

Second there is a possible price mechanism once the number of "free Bitcoins" lowers too much. If there is more demand for "free Bitcoins" than for ETF-held Bitcoins, then there will be significant outflows because you would be able to make more profit with self-custodied Bitcoins.

Take this example:

- We part from a price of $100,000 both for ETF Bitcoins and "free" Bitcoins.
- Let's say now the ETF have bought a lot of the free Bitcoins, to the point that the prices begin to diverge. ETF Bitcoins fall to $98,000 and free Bitcoins to $102,000.
- ETF investors see that they have lost around 4% of possible profits. They fear this trend to continue. They sell their ETFs and buy free Bitcoins instead.
- This results in ETF net outflows, and the price equilibrates at $100,000 again.

I think this mechanism puts a ceiling to custodied Bitcoins, as long as there is demand for free Bitcoins.  

Maybe we should make the definition a little clearer about exchange, miner, and also individual/private ownership. 56.2% for me is too much if it is kept in self-custodial manner (unless in this case satoshi's alleged wallets are also counted). Does it also mean individual ownership status in a centralized wallet? Legally, the bitcoins that users deposit belong to the user.

I guess Satoshi's coins make part of the "lost coins" category. At least I read that his coins in many of the higher estimations of that number (those over 3 million BTC) are considered lost too.

That the estimations are quite imprecise is also a feature of Bitcoin. We simply can't break down the holdings that perfectly because of Bitcoin's pseudonymous nature. It's not as perfect as Monero, but people with enough money have enough possible strategies to hide the connections between their wallets.

[Myleschetty]

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations since Strategy is raising billions of dollars through their STRC dividend offer to investors to buy more Bitcoin almost every 2 months (funny enough, some Bitcoiners are celebrating their accumulation)?

If companies are buying bitcoin, it is good. It is making bitcoin scarce and it can reduce bitcoin volatile so that more people can see bitcoin as a store of value. Although it will be good if more companies are buying so that it will not concentrate more as few companies asset.

You can see how countries are buying gold, they will still buy bitcoin like that. We are moving closer to the day this will begin rapidly.

The company's purchase of Bitcoin will create the demand that will make Bitcoin scarce. Have you considered the disadvantages that come with it and how they will manipulate the market, and the changes in regulations or accounting rules that will follow?

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations since Strategy is raising billions of dollars through their STRC dividend offer to investors to buy more Bitcoin almost every 2 months (funny enough, some Bitcoiners are celebrating their accumulation)?

51%, why did you choose this figure for your question?
Choosing this figure makes your question is likely from possible threat of 51% attack, is it your actual concern?

I guess it is yours because if your concern is not about 51% attack, the figure you chose for the question would be something different, like 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, and figure that is lower or higher than 51%.

To clarify, even if Strategy own 51% or higher % of Bitcoin total supply, this company won't be able to attack Bitcoin blockchain, can not make any rollback.

I chose the 51% because I think that if a private organization controls such a large percentage out of the total 21 million BTC, there is a potential for centralization and significant price manipulation in the future, because the private organization would like to be in charge of the Bitcoin market in the future. Additionally, they might be used in the future as a tool by the government to create a huge impact on the Bitcoin market.

[Oshosondy]

There is one thing I want you to know, that bitcoin ETF companies can not be totally be under companies because the bitcoin that they have is not their own. They buy bitcoin, create shares for it that their customers can buy. If the customers continue to sell bitcoin, you will see the ETF companies selling bitcoin also. They buy and sell bitcoin based on what their customers is demanding. This was one of the reasons I said the companies are not yet in control when Micheal Saylor said there would be no bear market, but bear market happened.

[Vlatlume]

There is one thing I want you to know, that bitcoin ETF companies can not be totally be under companies because the bitcoin that they have is not their own. They buy bitcoin, create shares for it that their customers can buy. If the customers continue to sell bitcoin, you will see the ETF companies selling bitcoin also. They buy and sell bitcoin based on what their customers is demanding. This was one of the reasons I said the companies are not yet in control when Micheal Saylor said there would be no bear market, but bear market happened.

Bitcoin EFTs like those from blockrock or fidelity investments hold btc on behalf of their investors the coins are tied to customer demand, not just the companys own balance sheet. if investors buy more eft shares, the fund usually acquires more bitcoin, they are mostly acting as custodians for their clients rather than making independent decisions with all those coins. thats why no single company fully controls the market. bitcoin price still depends on overall supply, demand and investor sentiment.

[monetizator4]

Makes sense. ETFs do rely on demand from their investors to keep their holdings. If more sell than buy, they have to follow suit. This dynamic limits how much sway any single entity can have over Bitcoin's price or distribution. Still, it's worth noting that while individual ETFs may not control BTC, the collective buying power of these entities could still influence market sentiment and liquidity

[AmaGold70]

According to data provided by Alexes Nakamoto as of this month's 3rd, the image below ^{(that's if the information in the image is correct though)} depicts the total amount of Bitcoin held worldwide by institutions, CEX, individuals, lost BTC, etc.

Source

This indicates that self-custody is still winning despite the number of people investing in STRC and others because of the dividends they will receive.
Many Bitcoiners may be unaware that President Donald Trump's enthusiasm for Bitcoin is not coincidental; rather, it stems from his family's experience of being debanked and antagonized by the traditional banking system when he began his presidential campaign.
This debanking caused him to shift to pro-crypto motivate in 2024. After winning the election, President Donald Trump backed Bitcoin because he realized the true value of assets that were not under state control due to lawsuits and frozen assets he experience suring his campaign,  which is why he supported BTC after he won the election.
This shows that if BTC is not outside the regulatory design, it will be just another regular asset, and I hope what I said here is enough to change the mindset of some Bitcoiners who participate in the STRC and other ETF investments or use a custodial platform as storage, know one of the dangers they will experience in the future.

My question now is, do will we still need to be afraid that 51% of BTC could end up in the custody of MicroStrategy/other ETF organizations since Strategy is raising billions of dollars through their STRC dividend offer to investors to buy more Bitcoin almost every 2 months (funny enough, some Bitcoiners are celebrating their accumulation)?

Bitcoin global ownership is increasing very rapidly, with countries, and institutions purchasing Bitcoin on regular basis. Bitcoin is a digital asset with a store of value, the traditional currency has been controlled the government which is one of the reasons why it not trusted, and can cause inflation, and reduce in value. Donald Trump is a bitcoin enthusiast, and is also holding good number of bitcoin in his portfolio. He knows the worth of bitcoin, and it's importance. Some people who leave their money in traditional currency have suffered big setback, the government can can decide to place your account on watch or possibly restrict you from making use of one's account, but Bitcoin does not have these challenges, you are totally in control of your fund, and your money also grows in value the more you hold your bitcoin.

[Cookdata]

There is one thing I want you to know, that bitcoin ETF companies can not be totally be under companies because the bitcoin that they have is not their own. They buy bitcoin, create shares for it that their customers can buy. If the customers continue to sell bitcoin, you will see the ETF companies selling bitcoin also. They buy and sell bitcoin based on what their customers is demanding. This was one of the reasons I said the companies are not yet in control when Micheal Saylor said there would be no bear market, but bear market happened.

Logically, we could also say to the exchanges are not exchanges because the coins in the exchanges doesn't not belong to them, it's users coins and for that reason they are not exchanges in real sense. IMO I think the person that analyzed the data made his grouping based on who controls the keys rather than who the coin belongs to in real sense. I think it would have been better if ETF are independent and not involved as company for for clarity.

To be frank with you, I don't know the essence why anyone would want share through ETF over having access to Bitcoin, what could be better than holding Bitcoin on your care without involving another party, it's like saying I cherish you so much but I don't want to be close to you, as long as you let me have some benefits from you, we are close pal but I may change my mind anytime. This is how it feels like holding ETF and it's surprising how institutions loves it.

[Hazink]

If companies are buying bitcoin, it is good. It is making bitcoin scarce and it can reduce bitcoin volatile so that more people can see bitcoin as a store of value. Although it will be good if more companies are buying so that it will not concentrate more as few companies asset.

You can see how countries are buying gold, they will still buy bitcoin like that. We are moving closer to the day this will begin rapidly.

It will be good in terms of value increase, and it will also be good in terms of reducing the volatility of Bitcoin but let us not just focus only on the advantages of such type of high accumulation and holding by this controlled centralized institution also have its also risks, like the risk of using that to manipulate the price when they want, such government involvement also comes with risk for them to push for tighter regulations which will make those who like privacy to appear as criminal if they are not ready to abide by regulatory requirements.

[Webetcoins]

Bitcoin could be a lot better for you if you invested into it for something long term and not short term. Long term would be getting you something that would get you out of the rat race and you could live off that without ever needing to work or listen to anyone.

The movie "gambler" explained it as "fuck you money", so your entire reason should be to reach a fuck you money and be better at it. But if you are not careful about it then you are going to focus on short term and lose a lot more.