Are all the bitcoins really concentrated in the hands of a small, wealthy elite?

Distribution or concentration? – Misconceptions about Bitcoin (BTC) are tough, and the mainstream media are doing everything to contribute. It is precisely to take the opposite view of a Bloomberg article that the experts at Glassnode come back in more detail on the concentration of bitcoins in a reduced number of addresses.

Highly concentrated bitcoins? It’s far from the absolute truth

On-chain data aggregator Glassnode wanted to fight an overly easy claim from the Bloomberg newspaper: „2% of accounts control 95% of all bitcoin . “

As Glassnode explains very well in its analysis , talking about „accounts“ as if it were a single user per account is misleading and has 2 major problems :

It should also be taken into account that the same user of the Bitcoin network can very well hold several addresses , just as conversely, an address can hold the funds of several users thanks to the so – called multi -signature wallets (without however that or that of a crypto-exchange).

Glassnode therefore goes well beyond prejudices in its analysis, and takes into account in particular exchange platforms (at least, those whose addresses have been made public ), as well as the addresses of mining pools , which concentrate the rewards for minors before distribution.

Surprising (or not, in fact): the table of the distribution of bitcoins is then quite different , and their concentration is much less disproportionate .

From the smallest shrimp (less than 1 BTC) to the largest whales (5,000 BTC and more), including small fish and other sharks, Glassnode illustrates below a much better , and more realistic , distribution of bitcoins.

The only truth is: whale addresses are accumulating more and more BTC

Ultimately, users who could be described as „individual“ (less than 50 BTC) still own almost 23% of existing bitcoins.

In contrast, the biggest whales (from 1,000 BTC and above) represent 25% of bitcoins. Given these figures, it’s immediately less impressive than the Bloomberg claims, isn’t it?