Who owns Bitcoin? Galaxy finds 55% of BTC supply remains unidentified

More than 11 million Bitcoin have remained outside the ownership records of major blockchain research firms, with Galaxy Research estimating that 55% of the cryptocurrency’s circulating supply cannot be linked to any known individual or institution.

According to Galaxy’s October ownership snapshot, roughly 11.1 million BTC remain unattributed despite years of institutional buying, the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs and the growing number of companies offering cryptocurrency custody services.

Galaxy head of research Alex Thorn said the findings suggest that a substantial amount of Bitcoin may still be controlled by individuals who manage their own wallets without relying on exchanges or financial institutions.

In an October post on X, Thorn pointed out that more than half of Bitcoin’s supply had no known ownership attribution even after years of institutional adoption. He suggested that individuals using self-custody could still account for much of the unidentified supply.

However, the research does not establish how much of the 11.1 million BTC belongs to retail investors, as unidentified institutional wallets and coins that are no longer accessible may account for part of the total.

Bitcoin ownership remains difficult to trace

Bitcoin transactions are recorded on a public blockchain, where wallet addresses, balances and transfers can be examined without knowing the identity of the person controlling the funds.

Research firms identify major holders by examining transaction histories and connecting addresses to exchanges, investment funds, governments and other entities whose holdings can be established through available records.

Galaxy’s figures show that approximately 45% of Bitcoin’s mined supply has been attributed to known holders or identifiable groups, leaving the remaining 55% without confirmed ownership labels.

An unattributed address does not necessarily represent an individual investor. A single person can control multiple wallets, while institutions may distribute their holdings across numerous addresses or use custody arrangements that make ownership harder to establish.

Bitcoin’s history provides examples of how difficult ownership identification can be.

In August, Galaxy Research tracked six dormant Bitcoin wallets that transferred 553.59 BTC worth approximately $40.15 million after remaining inactive for periods ranging from nearly 12 to more than 15 years.

The transfers involved wallets dating back to 2011, 2012 and 2014, although researchers could not establish who controlled most of the addresses or why the funds had moved.

Institutional Bitcoin holdings continue to grow

While a substantial portion of Bitcoin remains unidentified, financial institutions have accumulated significant holdings through investment products and custody arrangements.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust is among the largest identifiable institutional holders, alongside other exchange-traded funds, cryptocurrency exchanges and government-controlled wallets.

Recent Bitcoin ETF holdings data showed that BlackRock’s IBIT held approximately 814,263 BTC, while the combined holdings of the funds tracked by Lookonchain stood at 1,284,312 BTC.

The October 22 figures represented balances held by the tracked investment products, separate from their daily inflows and outflows.

Traditional banks have been expanding their cryptocurrency custody businesses as institutional demand develops.

An August report by crypto.news detailed Wall Street’s custody expansion, including Citigroup’s plans to introduce Bitcoin custody services before the end of 2026.

BNY Mellon already provides cryptocurrency custody services to ETF issuers, while Coinbase Custody remains a major provider for US spot cryptocurrency funds.

Unattributed Bitcoin may include lost coins

Galaxy’s unidentified supply estimate includes several categories of Bitcoin that cannot automatically be treated as coins held in personal wallets.

Some may belong to early miners whose identities were never established, while others could be held by investment firms, private trading desks or companies whose wallet addresses have not been publicly identified.

A portion could be permanently inaccessible because owners lost their private keys, discarded storage devices or died without leaving recovery instructions.

The research does not provide a verified breakdown separating lost Bitcoin from coins held by unidentified individuals and institutions.

Galaxy separately identifies approximately 1,123,658 BTC associated with the Patoshi mining pattern, which researchers have linked to Bitcoin’s earliest mining activity and commonly associate with its pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto.

The classification is based on historical mining patterns and does not independently establish the miner’s real-world identity.

Self-custody remains part of ownership debate

The findings have drawn attention to the continued use of personal wallets at a time when exchanges and institutional custodians are handling substantial amounts of Bitcoin.

Xapo Bank responded to Thorn’s observations by arguing that retail investors had participated in Bitcoin for more than a decade before much of the financial industry entered the market.

The bank described Bitcoin as a system where people can “be their own bank,” pointing to the ability to hold assets without depending on a conventional financial intermediary.

However, managing private keys carries security responsibilities that institutional custody arrangements handle differently.

Casa chief security officer Jameson Lopp recently warned Bitcoin holders against abandoning personal custody following several hardware wallet compromises and cryptocurrency thefts.

In an October 22 letter, Lopp recommended multisignature wallets and distributing private keys across different devices and locations to reduce the risk of losing access through a single compromised key.

He acknowledged that personal custody arrangements require careful security planning, including provisions for situations where owners become unable to access or manage their Bitcoin.

Lopp maintained that ETF investors can gain exposure to Bitcoin’s price without directly controlling the underlying cryptocurrency, leaving custody responsibilities with the fund and its appointed service providers.