- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
Galaxy Research cannot link 11.1 million bitcoin, about 55% of the 20.1 million mined, to any known exchange, fund, government or other identified holder, according to its October 26, 2026, snapshot.
Head of research Alex Thorn said much of it is still held by individuals in self-custody, but the data cannot separate those coins from lost ones or unidentified institutional holdings.
In a post on X on Monday, Thorn wrote that “More than half of all BTC supply” sits in addresses without known attribution. He added that a substantial portion is still “held by individuals in self-custody.”
However, the distinction between unidentified and individually owned Bitcoin is central to interpreting the findings. An unattributed address does not necessarily belong to a retail investor. It may also contain lost coins, holdings belonging to unidentified institutions or assets whose ownership cannot be established using available blockchain data.
Galaxy Research’s analysis categorises approximately 11.1 million BTC as unattributed, leaving around 9 million coins, or 45% of the mined total, associated with identified holders and entities.
The identified category includes cryptocurrency exchanges, spot Bitcoin ETFs led by BlackRock, the US government and large early Bitcoin holdings associated with the Patoshi mining pattern.
The Patoshi pattern refers to a collection of early Bitcoin blocks that researchers associate with a single miner widely believed to have been Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. Galaxy lists approximately 1,123,658 BTC in this category.
The classification illustrates how blockchain analytics firms attempt to establish ownership by connecting wallet addresses to known entities. They can use documented holdings, exchange-related information and patterns in blockchain activity to group addresses believed to belong to the same organisation or holder.
However, Bitcoin’s public ledger does not directly reveal the identities of the people behind individual addresses. Although transactions and balances are visible, determining who controls a particular wallet often requires information beyond the blockchain itself.
As a result, the Bitcoin supply that Galaxy identifies as unattributed represents the limits of its ownership classification rather than a definitive breakdown of who holds the coins.
The growing presence of institutional investors has made ownership attribution increasingly relevant. ETF providers, publicly listed companies and governments can account for significant holdings, but their identifiable positions represent only part of the overall market.
Galaxy’s figures suggest that even after accounting for major named entities, a substantial portion of existing Bitcoin remains outside the firm’s identified ownership clusters.
The 55% unattributed figure does not establish that individual investors control all the coins in that category. Several different types of holdings may contribute to the total, making it difficult to determine how much Bitcoin remains actively controlled by its owners.
Some coins may be permanently inaccessible because their owners have lost their private keys, forgotten their wallet credentials or died without transferring access to their holdings.
Other coins may belong to early miners whose identities have not been established. The category could also include funds, companies and over-the-counter trading desks that Galaxy has not linked to specific wallet addresses.
Wallet management practices create further complications. Individual investors and institutions can distribute their assets across multiple addresses, making it difficult for researchers to determine whether several addresses belong to one owner or different people.
Xapo Bank, a bitcoin-focused bank, offered a different perspective on the findings in a reply to Thorn’s post on X.
The bank argued that unidentified wallets reflect Bitcoin’s history as a market built from individual participation. It said retail investors have “been here for over a decade” while “everyone else” is still catching up.
The comment highlights the long-standing role of individual holders in Bitcoin’s development, even as financial institutions have expanded their involvement.
Nevertheless, the Bitcoin supply held in unattributed addresses cannot be treated as a direct measure of retail ownership. Without additional information, researchers cannot reliably separate actively managed self-custody wallets from inaccessible coins or unidentified institutional holdings.
This uncertainty also complicates arguments that a large share of Bitcoin is permanently unavailable for trading. Some unattributed coins may never return to circulation, while others could be moved or sold if their owners choose to do so.
Galaxy’s findings provide a view of how much Bitcoin ownership can currently be identified through blockchain attribution, but they do not establish how much of the asset is available for sale.
The distinction matters because investors sometimes interpret coins held outside exchanges or investment funds as evidence of long-term conviction or restricted market supply.
While self-custody can indicate that investors prefer to control their own assets, an unattributed balance alone cannot confirm the owner’s intentions. The same category includes holdings whose owners are unknown, coins that may be lost and potentially active wallets belonging to institutions.
The Bitcoin supply snapshot therefore offers a measure of ownership visibility rather than a definitive assessment of market liquidity or investor sentiment.
It also places the recent growth of institutional investment in perspective. Although spot ETFs and other large holders have become prominent features of the market, the identified portion of the mined supply remains smaller than the unattributed category.
Copyright © 2025 - The Bit Gazette.
