Global Bitcoin Ownership Insights

So, Alexes Nakamoto dropped some data on the 3rd of this month, showing this chart (if it’s legit) that breaks down how much Bitcoin is out there in the hands of institutions, exchanges, regular folks, lost wallets, and whatnot. This suggests that self-custody is still winning despite people flocking to STRC and similar investments for the dividends they promise. A lot of Bitcoin fans might not know this, but Trump’s interest in Bitcoin isn’t just random. It comes from his family’s troubles with the traditional banking system when he kicked off his presidential campaign. They got debanked, which pushed him to go pro-crypto this year. After his win, he embraced Bitcoin because he saw the value in assets that the government can’t touch, especially after dealing with lawsuits and frozen assets during his campaign. This just shows that if BTC isn’t outside regulatory hands, it’s simply another asset like any other. I really hope what I’ve shared gets some Bitcoiners to rethink their involvement in STRC, ETFs, or custodial storage since they might face some nasty surprises down the road. So here’s my question: Should we be worried that 51% of BTC could end up being controlled by MicroStrategy or other ETF companies, especially since they’re raising huge amounts through the STRC dividends to buy even more Bitcoin?

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 reason why people celebrate the accumulation of big companies is because they know that bitcoin's value will rise and since they already hold a portion of bitcoin, this is beneficial to them. a lot of us are thinking more long term and i know that a lot of people will be holding bitcoin for a long time so i am not particularly afraid that most bitcoin will end up in the hands of big corporations. after all, these corporations are getting profit from bitcoin because of the individual demand that there is.

One thing that captivate my attention from this chart what's the percentage of those that own Bitcoin individually, which is apparently the highest of all others, showing that bitcoin cannot be centralized, and it is indeed serving its purpose, when everyone have access to this digital currency, it make the circulation more effective and as well avoid centralization even by the whales. This is why I keep wondering seeing some members asking about if this will investors could eventually centralized Bitcoin, but this chat already showed it clear difference and what should be known, that decentralization is the only possible means to bitcoin network and still remains.

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. How many Bitcoin confirmations is enough?

I have a question...💁 Where does this belief come from that institutional players' actions inevitably lead to a sharp rise in the Bitcoin price? Is Bitcoin's price today measured in hundreds of thousands of US dollars? 🙋 In mid-2021, Bitcoin's price was $69,000. And there were no Michael Saylor buys or spot Bitcoin ETFs back then... Now (five years later), Bitcoin's price is $80,000. And it's safe to assume that the price increase from $59,000 to $80,000 was not due to institutional players, but rather to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East (many bought Bitcoin after seeing how easily Iranian missiles destroy luxury properties in Arab countries). Have you ever wondered if Bitcoin's price would be significantly higher today without the influence of institutional players?  This is just a guess, but keep in mind that institutional players aren't trading Bitcoin itself, but derivatives, or so-called "paper Bitcoin." Moreover, the market capitalization of "paper Bitcoin" is much larger than that of real Bitcoin. Could this be the reason why Bitcoin's price isn't showing impressive growth? 🤷 Furthermore, the ability to quickly and easily buy "paper Bitcoin" has its drawbacks. It can also be quickly and easily sold...

There is some truth to this data, but there is also a lot of speculation, especially about how many coins were actually lost. If you take the data that 56% of the mined coins are in private hands to be accurate, that would not be bad - but I would be interested in what that percentage was at the beginning of 2020? Undoubtedly, it was much more than today, considering that millions of coins ended up in funds and private companies, and by the end of the decade, at least 15-20% could go in that direction. @bitterguy28, @Dunamisx, @Smartprofit -  Question for you - why the unnecessary quoting? This achieves nothing except that your posts look like a mess - not to mention that you make it difficult for those with slow internet connections to load the topic.

Do they have enough resources if we're talking about 51% of total supply here? I guess that this coincides with the idea of 51% attack why you ended up with the idea of that percentage? I won't compute how much would that be in total and if the average price is $80k, the 51% of total supply in the circulation would be so much for them.

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.

Will this make a difference? Bitcoin is not a POS[1] coin, and therefore individual or collective holdings do not affect network security. If the above plan is for mining pools, then the discussion can be completed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake

Whoops! The lost supply count just surprised me, haha. Like 3.5M BTC count from its net supply is inaccessible or in lost form. And if we calculate the value of Bitcoin according to its current price, then it is somewhere near 283.5 billion USDT. That's so huge, like 283.5 billion is a locked, lost, and unmoved supply of Bitcoin. At the same time, I was just thinking, what about dormant wallets? dead wallets? Do these also come under the inaccessible and lost supply of Bitcoin count? As your chart has no data about such details. I think there are many wallets that are dormant for such a long time, and in the past, we have seen some of them come back to market. Which means not all dormant and dead wallets are a locked supply of bitcoin. Do you have any such kind of information that can tell the percentage of such supply of bitcoin in total, which is unmoved and dormant for such a long time?

I never liked the idea of ETF. But even Though ETF might in a way not align with our main focus with Bitcoin ie, decentralization. It some how also plays a role in terms of adoption. Eventually in the future when all Bitcoin would have been mined they will play major roles since investors can also participate in Bitcoin ownership even if they won't own them directly. The chart already answers this part of your question. the ratio of non-custodial to institutionally own coins is enough to know that even if they end up purchasing the remaining unmined Bitcoin  which is not possible, there will still be a large number of individually owned bitcoins in non custodial Wallets.

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?

I don't know the reason why do we have to be afraid if institutions owns 51% of Bitcoin.  These institutions are businesses, so if ever Bitcoin crashes, they are the one who will suffer the most since they hold huge amount and Bitcoin crashing means they will lose huge amount of money.  They will surely protect their interest and with that, they will be very careful in dealing with Bitcoins.  It is far frigthening to know an individual owning huge amount of Bitcoin because this individual can cash out anytime he wants without any implication to his own finances. Depends on the intention of an individual.  If he wanted to profit greatly, he would love to see Bitcoin in a highly volatile state so that he can take advantage on the price fluctuation.  While merchants who love supporting the technology would like to see a stable Bitcoin.  This way they can accept Bitcoin and store it without worrying for the next days Bitcoin valuation.

I would bet on any thing that over 90 percent of the people writing in this Topic would run away from Bitcoin if it ever became stable because the real reason they are here is not for financial freedom but to make money.  Would you still want a Bitcoin you can store 'without worrying for the next days about Bitcoin valuation'?  What is the point?  Hoping that Bitcoin stops having a swinging price so centralized entities can ACCEPT it?  Hell.  What are we hoping for!

It depends Less volatility is better for Bitcoin as money While volatility is better for Bitcoin as an investment. If Bitcoin is really going to mature globally then it has to be less volatile than it is today.   I'm not saying volatility would disappear but it would be less than it is now. Moderate if I would say with usage matching it.

Bitcoin is mature already.  I used to also think volatility was what made it immature but it makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin.  In fact.  It has never really been 'money' in the actual sense, has it.  Experiments like El Salvador failed so far.  Every time you hear about a new company or Billionaire joining the Bitcoin community, you hear about investing.  Never about using it as money.  Unless we talk about Musk and his short term 'we accept Bitcoin for Teslas' marketing campaign. I do not know if it is even possible to have Bitcoin with almost no volatility.  This means the price only grows constantly with no significant drops.  It means Saylor and every body else only keep on purchasing and purchasing and never selling any of their billions or millions or what ever amount their wealth is.  We all hold on to Bitcoin to infinity and if some of us finally sells a fortune five Halving cycles later, it is supposed to be eaten up by the market with no panic selling, no drops when a war starts.  Nothing.  Only upside. Maybe I am stupid right now.  Correct me if I am.  But other than the vast majority of Bitcoin in circulation being handled by a handful of people who end up controlling the market.  How would it even be possible?

So because 51% of BTC in ETF custody, we should be scared? When we all know that regardless of the amount of Bitcoin Strategy and the ETFs accumulate, it doesn't give them full control or governance power in the Bitcoin network. They can only influence market but they can’t control consensus rules just because they hold a lot of coins. 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.

to me at the early stage volatility was needed But it was created first to be money And with time volatility has to reduce. I would say growth stage and some leg in maturing stage. Nothing is really stable not even stable coins So it's impossible to expect no volatility for bitcoin. As long as its needed, the supply is fixed it would keep to be a store of value better than Gold. Volatility zero isn't really needed for it to serve as a medium of exchange.    Well saylor already admitted that they would sell And holding wouldn't necessarily push the price from my understanding It's just reduce liquidity that a smaller amount can affect the market both ways Since price are usually determine via forces of demand and supply on exchanges. Well that would have been unrealistic Even Gold and dollar are usually affected.

I believe individual holders and self custody still account for majority of the holders of Bitcoin despite the accumulated effort of microstrategy and other institutions with large pockets. To top it, the only way to be immune to government regulations is by self custody, because you own your keys and owning Bitcoin in itself gives you the permissionless right to use it the way you want and invest further either by diversification or liquidation into traditional paper currency for expenses.