For 55% of BTC the owner is still unknown

[greysonz]

Bitcoin is a dark ocean, and not all of its inhabitants are known.
A chart from Galaxy Research for October 14 illustrates this well:


https://x.com/intangiblecoins/status/2110321735187013862

It shows the proportion of identified Bitcoin owners associated with specific wallets, and they make up 45 percent. The majority are exchanges, ETFs, and custodians. But the owners of the other portion are unknown, they are simply unlabeled addresses.
For me, this "unidentified" nature is part of the concept of decentralization.
I understand that the largest of these wallets are monitored by alert bots, and the overall ratios will fluctuate greatly. But overall, I'm surprised that the depths of our Bitcoin ocean are still so murky.

[sergiorus]

Now imagine trying to identify owners of physical cash bills or gold/silver of all kinds (jewellery, cutlery, watches)?

Why should the owners even be known? Isn't that the whole point (or at least one of the points)?

[Sanitough]

It's not surprising though, since one of the main purposes of Bitcoin is to provide privacy, so the number of unknown owners should be higher than those who are known. Many of these people are probably just individuals who haven't linked their wallets to any identifiable entities, so they remain unknown.

You can see every transaction on the blockchain but you cannot identify everyone, that is normal and just because they are unknown doesn't mean the owners are hiding something. That's what makes Bitcoin different from the traditional financial system, where transactions are generally private, while Bitcoin transactions are publicly transparent but the identities of the wallet owners are not necessarily known.

[KiaKia]

They should remain unknown because this is the main reason why sensible people use Bitcoin, I know that we have loads of people who don't even care about their privacy online but it's good to see the percentage over 50%.

Some while ago I have always thought that I was the only one who cares about my privacy, I felt this way because people shill their Bitcoin too much, people don't care about giving up their KYC information with their home addresses.

People don't care about Peer to Peer transactions, people prefer leaving their coins on centralised exchanges, the main purpose of having Bitcoin is to be free from centralisation manipulation and control, but some people just want Bitcoin to double their funds.

The future is going to cost a lot of people, those who don't practice privacy and decentralisation.

[348Judah]

Bitcoin is a dark ocean, and not all of its inhabitants are known.
A chart from Galaxy Research for October 14 illustrates this well:

Just try to subtract the Satoshi Bitcoin and other unknown whales who invested in Bitcoin and are still holding it today, and you'll see that almost all 55% is made up of what I just mentioned.

Anyway, this doesn't cause panic because many individuals hold a much larger share of the market than even those we think are giant holders; eventually, the network is more secure and safer for everyone, both the whales and every other individual who has invested in Bitcoin and is still holding.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

Except if you are a company, an institution that has responsibility of filing your annual report to government and some authorities, your Bitcoin public addresses won't be known with connection to your identity.

Then most of bitcoins are not known about owners and 55% of BTC are possibly from governments with seized bitcoins, and companies with such public reports.

In the screenshot, I see Patoshi, it's assumed as coins mined by Satoshi Nakamoto but it's only assumption and estimation.
Was Satoshi a greedy miner?
The Return of the Deniers and the Revenge of Patoshi.
Satoshi ‘s Fortune: a more accurate figure.

[mirakal]

It's even alarming that it has reached that level since the 45%, although still a minority, includes institutions that are catching up, they are buying Bitcoin to potentially dominate the market in the future. What was once pseudonymous, I'm afraid we might not fully enjoy that privacy in the future if we are forced to use centralized systems to exchange our Bitcoin, governments are doing everything they can to make it operate more like a bank, and they are undermining the nature of decentralization with their centralized regulations.

[tbct_mt2]

It's even alarming that it has reached that level since the 45%, although still a minority, includes institutions that are catching up, they are buying Bitcoin to potentially dominate the market in the future. What was once pseudonymous, I'm afraid we might not fully enjoy that privacy in the future if we are forced to use centralized systems to exchange our Bitcoin, governments are doing everything they can to make it operate more like a bank, and they are undermining the nature of decentralization with their centralized regulations.

Since the latest market cycle, there was discussion about less effects from Bitcoin halving and Bitcoin miners because most bitcoins in total supply have been already mined. There is not too considerable percent of Bitcoin total supply to be mined in future Bitcoin blocks till 2140, it's one thing.

Another thing is appearance and participation of more institutions in Bitcoin market. They have bigger capital, more long term vision and strategy for their investment, then they have gradually collected bitcoins from miners and retail investors. With time, years, cycles especially bear markets, more bitcoins will be owned and centralized in institutions.

Fortunately, if you can realize this wide picture, you can make your own strategy for investment portfolio and enjoy good profit in future years, cycles and decades.

[sunsilk]

I understand that the largest of these wallets are monitored by alert bots, and the overall ratios will fluctuate greatly. But overall, I'm surprised that the depths of our Bitcoin ocean are still so murky.

I don't get the idea why they continue to monitor the influxes that are into this chain. With the holdings that are from the publicly disclosed companies and exchanges, they're normal to be heavily monitored.

But trying to figure and track the private individuals or holders of the remaining percentile that they have no idea with, they better leave it and only focus on the publicly displayed amounts from these companies.

I'm afraid we might not fully enjoy that privacy in the future if we are forced to use centralized systems to exchange our Bitcoin, governments are doing everything they can to make it operate more like a bank, and they are undermining the nature of decentralization with their centralized regulations.

That is happening and I'm afraid that there's no way to stop them. It's either they sanction the exchange that will not obey to their regulations or the exchange have to implement the rules to their users.

[mirakal]

I'm afraid we might not fully enjoy that privacy in the future if we are forced to use centralized systems to exchange our Bitcoin, governments are doing everything they can to make it operate more like a bank, and they are undermining the nature of decentralization with their centralized regulations.

That is happening and I'm afraid that there's no way to stop them. It's either they sanction the exchange that will not obey to their regulations or the exchange have to implement the rules to their users.

Well if regulators did not require KYC,I believe exchanges would be fine serving customers without it, as they would not impose unnecessary requirements that could drive customers away. After all , exchanges are businesses and they prefer to make things easier for customers of course as long as they are not violating any regulations.

I just remembered, comparing P2P trading in the past and nowadays, it's quite different, as before P2P was done without KYC, just an escrow service and everything would be fine. Nowadays, I find it hard to find that kind of service as it's not as fast, so our only option is to use an exchange like Binance for P2P, but at the sacrifice of losing our privacy as KYC is needed to use the service.

[aoluain]

It's even alarming that it has reached that level since the 45%, although still a minority, includes institutions that are catching up, they are buying Bitcoin to potentially dominate the market in the future. What was once pseudonymous, I'm afraid we might not fully enjoy that privacy in the future if we are forced to use centralized systems to exchange our Bitcoin, governments are doing everything they can to make it operate more like a bank, and they are undermining the nature of decentralization with their centralized regulations.

Yes at first I was surprised that the statistic is as high as 45% buy by examining that
its clear why its 45%, centralised exchanges and institutional financial incestors etc.

1.] This is why staying away from KYC platforms is essential, it gives us a fighting chance
     of not ending up in that chart, we stay GREY and trade if we have to without KYC.

2.] There is a strong argument which goes against what a lot of people say is essential
     to Bitcoins design/philosophy/survival - That is to HODL. HODL'ing means we prolong the
     length of time the institutions have to become more and more dominant.

[Zaguru12]

Yes at first I was surprised that the statistic is as high as 45% buy by examining that
its clear why its 45%, centralised exchanges and institutional financial incestors etc.

The percentage is that high because what OP is showing is the current bitcoin circulating supply and in whose hands the bitcoin are with and we all know that majority of the coins are held by institutions like ETFs, exchanges and other corporate institutions like MSTR while this bitcoin do not entirely belong to the institutions but their customers (if that’s the right word) blockchain analysts simply tag them based on the institutions they are on. Like every bitcoin on binance is reordered as binance bitcoin. And also some known whales.

The remaining 55% is for those who uses self custody to keep their coins and you can agree with me that the number of people trusting all institutions or other third party entities with bitcoins is growing everyday most especially since spot  ETF got approved

[Hatchy]

Now imagine trying to identify owners of physical cash bills or gold/silver of all kinds (jewellery, cutlery, watches)?

Why should the owners even be known? Isn't that the whole point (or at least one of the points)?

I was actually thinking about this, and I'm glad someone brought it up. It's almost impossible to know the actual number of Bitcoin owners out there. Most of the data we can easily access comes from centralized platforms and institutions that identify their users. If you buy Bitcoin without going through a centralized platform that requires KYC, it becomes more difficult to link your identity to your Bitcoin addresses. This is one of the things I appreciate about Bitcoin, although it doesn't guarantee complete anonymity.
The whole idea behind Bitcoin was to give people more financial freedom and the ability to transact without depending on centralized authorities. Unfortunately, many people seem to care less about these principles today because they are more focused on making profits from Bitcoin than understanding what it was created to achieve

[Chinesebaby]

It shows the proportion of identified Bitcoin owners associated with specific wallets, and they make up 45 percent. The majority are exchanges, ETFs, and custodians. But the owners of the other portion are unknown, they are simply unlabeled addresses.
For me, this "unidentified" nature is part of the concept of decentralization.
I understand that the largest of these wallets are monitored by alert bots, and the overall ratios will fluctuate greatly. But overall, I'm surprised that the depths of our Bitcoin ocean are still so murky.

And that unidentified Bitcoin owners include you and I who holds our Bitcoin in a secured non custodial Bitcoin wallet like Electrum and Mycelium. And the fact that that remaining 55% stays unknown, that's the beauty about Bitcoin. Because imagine if government and private individuals have known people by their amount of Bitcoin in their individual wallet, I bet you,those people wouldn't have been safe anymore. But rather Bitcoin gives you the opportunity to hold large sum of money and still pretend to live an average life in the society.

[Upgrade00]

But overall, I'm surprised that the depths of our Bitcoin ocean are still so murky.

It's not being murky when that is the design. It was meant to be pseudo anonymous with transparent addresses but no identity attached to them. This graph shows the extent of institutional investments we have had and how much centralisation we have had with exchanges, ETFs and companies holding that amount.

If we even considered this to be a flaw, the oceans of fiat and other assets servicing globally is more difficult to trace. A huge chunk of cash is untracked, flowing into crime or government corruption

[sunsilk]

That is happening and I'm afraid that there's no way to stop them. It's either they sanction the exchange that will not obey to their regulations or the exchange have to implement the rules to their users.

Well if regulators did not require KYC,I believe exchanges would be fine serving customers without it, as they would not impose unnecessary requirements that could drive customers away. After all , exchanges are businesses and they prefer to make things easier for customers of course as long as they are not violating any regulations.

I just remembered, comparing P2P trading in the past and nowadays, it's quite different, as before P2P was done without KYC, just an escrow service and everything would be fine. Nowadays, I find it hard to find that kind of service as it's not as fast, so our only option is to use an exchange like Binance for P2P, but at the sacrifice of losing our privacy as KYC is needed to use the service.

Sadly, we are already done with that era. We've seen binance, kucoin and other top exchanges before that didn't asked for kyc.

But when the government stepped in and got involved, that's where the kyc has been implemented and there have been levels before.

Level 1 is fine with no kyc until there's no more tier to that and every user was required to comply with kyc.

[bitcoin-shark]

In my opinion, anonymity is a golden rule—after all, why should bitcoin holders be known? So that someone can try to hack them? I actually think 55% is a low figure; in any case, 100% anonymity doesn't exist, since transactions are public.

[YellowSwap]

While some are saying that 55% is high I feel some sad pain in my heart, this isn't actually good, what happened to the rest? If wrench attack goes out of control right now are we saying that 45% of people aren't safe?

This is where centralised exchanges and KYC verification have gotten us, things aren't looking as good like many thinks, let's just hope that data theft and wrench attack will grow away, if not? It's going to be a mess..

[moneystery]

Isn't that a good thing? It means that Bitcoin still works as it should, as a pseudonymous system where users can have assets without having to reveal their real-world identities on the blockchain.
What's a bit concerning, though, is how Coinbase, Binance, BlackRock, and various other centralized entities are continuing to increase their influence. The figure might still be around 45% at the moment, but if their share continues to grow, it could eventually raise concerns about how much influence these entities have.

[AylaS_Krlnz42]

How does the chart handle overlap between funds and custodians? If a fund's BTC is held by a custodian, which category receives that balance? A note on how the categories are separated would make the percentages easier to interpret.