Around 11.1 million BTC cannot be linked to identified holders in Galaxy’s records, highlighting the limits of ownership analysis despite growing institutional adoption.
MARKET INSIDER — More than half of Bitcoin’s mined supply remains outside Galaxy Research’s ownership classifications, even as exchange-traded funds, corporate treasuries and institutional custodians expand their presence in the market.
Galaxy’s October snapshot classified approximately 11.1 million BTC, or 55% of supply, as unattributed. The category covers coins the firm cannot connect to an identified individual, organisation or other recognised holder.
The finding suggests self-custody remains important, but it does not establish that individuals own all those coins. Unidentified institutional wallets and inaccessible holdings may also account for part of the total.
Key Highlights
- Galaxy classifies approximately 11.1 million BTC—about 55% of mined supply—as unattributed.
- The figure does not measure how much Bitcoin is lost, held by retail investors or unavailable for sale.
- Holdings attributed to custodians and exchanges must also be distinguished from the assets’ ultimate economic owners.
Unattributed does not mean ownerless
Bitcoin’s blockchain makes transactions publicly observable, but it does not automatically attach a person’s or company’s name to an address.
Researchers combine transaction analysis with public disclosures and other evidence to associate addresses with exchanges, funds, governments and large holders. Where that evidence is insufficient, balances remain unclassified.
Galaxy’s figure therefore describes the limits of its attribution data. It does not mean the coins have no owner, nor that their holders are necessarily unknown to every exchange, custodian or public authority.
An address is also not equivalent to an individual investor. One holder can control many addresses, while a single custodial address can represent assets belonging to numerous customers.
That makes address-level visibility useful without making it a complete ownership register.
Self-custody remains part of the picture
Alex Thorn, Galaxy’s head of research, interpreted the figures as evidence that substantial Bitcoin holdings remain with individuals who control their own private keys.
Self-custody allows holders to authorise transactions without relying on an exchange or fund to manage their coins. Its continued use would be consistent with Bitcoin’s development as an asset adopted by individuals before large financial institutions entered the market.
Bitcoin-focused Xapo Bank offered a similar interpretation, pointing to the long-standing participation of retail holders.
However, those observations are interpretations of the data rather than a measured breakdown of the unidentified category. Galaxy’s snapshot does not establish the proportion held by individuals, their investment horizons or their willingness to sell.
Institutional adoption and self-custody can coexist. Growth in regulated investment products does not require existing holders to move their coins into those products.
Lost coins and unidentified institutions complicate the estimate
Some unattributed Bitcoin may be inaccessible because private keys were lost or a holder died without a workable succession arrangement.
Other balances may belong to funds, companies, private trading desks or custodians whose addresses have not been identified. Institutions can distribute holdings across multiple addresses, making attribution more difficult.
The size of each group remains uncertain.
In particular, long inactivity does not prove that coins are permanently lost. A holder may simply have chosen not to move them. Equally, an address that has not been identified could belong to an active investor rather than a long-term saver.
These distinctions prevent the 55% figure from being used as a direct estimate of either retail ownership or permanently unavailable supply.
Satoshi’s holdings are an estimate, too
The identified portion includes exchanges, ETFs and governments, alongside an early-mining category associated with Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.
Galaxy’s classification assigns approximately 1.12 million BTC to the “Patoshi” mining pattern, which researchers associate with an early miner believed to be Satoshi. This is an attribution based on historical mining patterns, not confirmation of the miner’s real-world identity or present access to the coins.
Describing Satoshi as a definitively identified owner would therefore overstate the evidence.
The broader lesson is that ownership datasets can combine several levels of certainty: publicly disclosed corporate holdings, labelled custodial wallets and historically inferred clusters.
Custody concentration differs from ownership concentration
A large exchange balance does not necessarily represent Bitcoin owned by the exchange itself. Much of it may belong economically to customers.
Similarly, a custodian holding Bitcoin for an ETF controls assets on behalf of the investment vehicle, whose shares are owned by investors.
This creates two different questions. How concentrated is control over private keys? And how concentrated is the economic exposure to Bitcoin?
A custody map may help answer the first while providing only limited information about the second. Researchers also need to avoid counting the same coins both under a custodian and under the fund whose assets it holds.
For investors evaluating concentration risk, the methodology matters as much as the headline percentages.
What the finding means for markets
The unattributed share is not, by itself, a bullish or bearish price signal.
It does not show that 11.1 million BTC are permanently withheld from the market. Nor does it establish that unidentified holders are preparing to sell.
Bitcoin’s traded liquidity depends on the amounts owners are willing to transact at particular prices, rather than simply whether analysts can name them.
ETF flows, exchange activity and movements of older coins can help assess changes in market behaviour, but each requires context. Even a transfer between wallets may reflect a custody reorganisation rather than a sale.
Galaxy’s snapshot highlights an important limitation for investors: institutional Bitcoin holdings are increasingly visible, while the broader distribution of ownership remains only partly understood.
