Who Really Owns Bitcoin? Galaxy Research Says Self-Custody Is Still King

The Silent Majority in a World of Institutional Hype

Bitcoin was built on a promise of financial independence, and according to new research, that promise remains very much alive. For years, the public narrative around the cryptocurrency has focused on the arrival of institutional investors, from billion-dollar hedge funds to publicly traded companies. Headlines have celebrated the approval of spot exchange-traded funds, the accumulation of Bitcoin by major corporations, and the growing presence of Wall Street in the digital asset space. Yet beneath the surface, the blockchain tells a different and far more complex story. Alex Thorn, president of Galaxy Research, believes the data indicates that self-custody—the practice by which individual investors protect their own private keys—is still widespread. In a market often characterized by centralization and corporate ambition, this is a striking finding. It suggests that the individuals who entered Bitcoin in its early years, when it was still a niche experiment for cypherpunks and tech enthusiasts, accumulated vast amounts of the digital currency long before institutions began paying attention. These early adopters, many of whom remain anonymous, have not surrendered their coins to exchanges or custodians. Instead, they have held onto them, often through dramatic price swings, regulatory crackdowns, and technological upheaval. The result is a distribution of ownership that is far more dispersed than most people assume. According to Galaxy Research’s analysis, a significant portion of Bitcoin’s supply—around 11.1 million coins—sits in addresses that have not been linked to any known institutional entity. That is a remarkable number, especially in an era when institutional adoption is supposed to be the defining trend of the market. Thorn’s conclusions are based on a detailed examination of on-chain data, which tracks the movement and custody of Bitcoin across the network. The blockchain is often described as a public ledger, but reading it is not always straightforward. Addresses are pseudonymous, and transactions can be layered across multiple wallets. Nevertheless, by combining address tags, transaction histories, and other signals, Galaxy Research has assembled a picture of the market that challenges conventional wisdom. The picture is one of resilience and independence. It shows that, even as the broader financial system has embraced Bitcoin, a large cohort of users has chosen to remain outside it, holding their own keys and managing their own risks. This is not a relic of the past; it is a living part of the market’s structure. It also raises important questions about the future of digital asset ownership and the limits of regulatory oversight.

Lost Keys, Forgotten Fortunes, and Unlabeled Wallets

Yet Thorn is quick to caution against reading too much into that number. The fact that 11.1 million Bitcoins are held in unknown addresses does not mean they all belong to active, engaged individual investors. The reality is far more complicated. A substantial portion of these coins may be permanently lost, locked away in wallets whose private keys have been forgotten, misplaced, or destroyed. In Bitcoin’s early years, when the digital currency was worth only a fraction of a cent, many users did not treat their holdings with the same care they would today. They mined coins on laptops that later broke, wrote down seed phrases on scraps of paper that were eventually thrown away, or simply moved on and forgot about the digital tokens they had once accumulated. Some early adopters have passed away without leaving their families the information needed to access their wallets. The result is a vast, silent graveyard of Bitcoin—coins that will never be spent, never be sold, and never be recovered. Lost coins are not just a tragedy for their owners; they also affect the broader market. Every inaccessible Bitcoin reduces the effective supply, potentially supporting the value of the coins that remain in circulation. But lost coins are only part of the story. The unknown category is also likely to include a wide range of professional actors that have not yet been identified by blockchain analysts. Companies, mutual funds, over-the-counter trading desks, and complex custody systems all move Bitcoin through addresses that may not be publicly linked to their names. Some institutions deliberately create fresh wallets for each transaction, making it even harder to track their holdings. In the fast-moving world of cryptocurrency, new addresses are generated every second, and the tagging systems used by analytics firms are always playing catch-up. What appears to be a collection of individual wallets could, in reality, be the operational backbone of a major financial firm. This ambiguity is a reminder that on-chain analysis is as much an art as it is a science. The data can tell us where Bitcoin moves, but it cannot always tell us who is moving it or why.

The Identified 45 Percent: Exchanges, ETFs, Governments, and Companies

On the other side of the ledger, the remaining 45 percent of Bitcoin’s supply is accounted for by identifiable entities. These are the players that dominate the headlines and the regulatory debates. Major cryptocurrency exchanges hold billions of dollars’ worth of Bitcoin on behalf of their customers, acting as custodians in a market that was once defined by the absence of intermediaries. Spot Bitcoin ETFs, which launched in the United States after years of regulatory wrangling, have become one of the fastest-growing investment products in the history of the asset class. The US government, through a series of high-profile seizures from dark web marketplaces and cybercriminals, has accumulated a substantial stockpile of its own. A growing number of publicly traded companies have also added Bitcoin to their balance sheets, viewing it as a hedge against inflation and a store of value. These identifiable actors are the ones whose every move is watched by analysts and traders. When a large transfer to an exchange is detected, it can spark speculation about an impending sell-off. When an ETF reports inflows, it is celebrated as evidence of institutional confidence. The visibility of these entities gives them an outsized role in the market’s narrative, even though their combined holdings represent less than half of the total supply. The Galaxy Research study also carves out a special category for one of the most famous—and most enigmatic—holdings in the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem: the Patoshi model addresses. These are a set of early Bitcoin addresses that are widely believed to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. According to the study, these addresses contain 1,123,658 Bitcoins. By treating them as a separate known category, the research acknowledges both their historical importance and the strong likelihood that those coins will never move. Satoshi’s holdings have remained untouched for over a decade, a quiet monument to the mystery at the heart of Bitcoin’s creation. For researchers, these addresses are a tantalizing puzzle. They represent the earliest known mining activity on the network, and they have never spent a single coin. Their existence is a constant reminder that Bitcoin’s origins are still shrouded in uncertainty.

The Limits of Blockchain Transparency

One of the most persistent myths about Bitcoin is that the blockchain offers a perfectly transparent view of ownership. In reality, while every transaction is recorded on a public ledger, the identity behind any given address is often impossible to determine. The blockchain does not label addresses with the names of their owners. It simply displays a series of cryptographic keys. Analysts can make educated guesses based on known exchanges, disclosed holdings, and transaction patterns, but these guesses are far from infallible. A single individual might use thousands of addresses, spreading their Bitcoin across multiple wallets to enhance privacy or to organize their holdings in ways that make sense to them. Conversely, a single custodial address controlled by an exchange or a fund might represent the assets of thousands of clients. In such cases, an address with a balance of 10,000 Bitcoin could belong to one person—or to a platform with millions of users. This fundamental ambiguity is why the Galaxy Research study is best understood as an estimate, not a definitive ownership registry. It relies on existing address tags, which are often incomplete, outdated, or based on third-party information. New addresses are created all the time, and sophisticated users can obscure their transaction history through privacy tools, coin-mixing services, or simply by moving funds through multiple hops. The result is a partial map of Bitcoin ownership—a map that offers valuable insights but also leaves many questions unanswered. For investors, this uncertainty is both a challenge and an opportunity. It means that the true distribution of Bitcoin may never be fully known. It also means that assumptions about who holds the market, and why, should be treated with caution. In a world where data is supposed to drive decisions, the blockchain remains a reminder that some information is still stubbornly out of reach. The Galaxy Research analysis is a valuable contribution to the ongoing effort to understand Bitcoin’s ownership structure, but it is not the final word. It is a snapshot, not a complete portrait.

What This Means for the Market and the Future

The findings from Galaxy Research have implications that extend far beyond the world of on-chain analysis. If self-custody remains as widespread as the data suggests, it indicates a market that is more resilient than many observers believe. Coins held in private wallets are less likely to be dumped on exchanges during moments of panic. They are also less susceptible to regulatory pressure. Governments can force exchanges and custodians to comply with sanctions, freeze assets, and report suspicious activity, but they cannot easily seize Bitcoin that is held in self-custody. This is a feature that many early adopters value deeply, and it is one of the core reasons Bitcoin was created in the first place. The persistence of self-custody also has significant implications for the supply and demand dynamics of the market. If a meaningful portion of the 11.1 million unknown coins is lost or inaccessible, the effective circulating supply of Bitcoin is smaller than the total mined supply. That scarcity, in turn, could have a long-term impact on prices. It also means that the true number of active market participants may be much lower than the total number of coins suggests. For regulators, the challenge is equally daunting. How do you oversee a market in which a large share of the asset is held anonymously, outside the reach of any institution? The study underscores the importance of address labeling and on-chain analytics as tools for understanding the market, but it also highlights their limitations. As the cryptocurrency market matures, the ability to distinguish between retail, institutional, and lost holdings will become increasingly valuable. Thorn’s analysis is a step in that direction, but it is far from the final word. The blockchain remains a vast and largely uncharted landscape, and every attempt to map it reveals just how much we still do not know.

A Quiet Revolution in Ownership

In the end, the picture painted by Galaxy Research is one of complexity and nuance. Bitcoin is not owned by a monolithic group of institutions, nor is it entirely in the hands of anonymous individuals. It is a patchwork of different actors—some visible, some hidden, some permanently lost to time. What is clear is that the ethos of self-custody is far from dead. Even as Wall Street has embraced Bitcoin, a large number of holders continue to rely on their own private keys, choosing independence over convenience. This quiet revolution is not always visible in the headlines, but it is written indelibly into the blockchain. For those who believe in the original promise of Bitcoin—a decentralized currency that no single entity can control—that is a reassuring thought. It suggests that, despite all the changes of the past decade, the network remains true to its roots. As Thorn and his team continue to analyze the data, the conversation about ownership will likely evolve. New tools will be developed, new tags will be added, and our understanding of the market will deepen. But one thing seems certain: the true owners of Bitcoin are far more diverse than the market’s most visible players would suggest. Whether those coins are held by a retired engineer in Europe, a hedge fund in New York, or a forgotten wallet in a landfill, they all share the same immutable ledger. And that, in the end, is the essence of Bitcoin. The research offers a valuable reminder that the cryptocurrency revolution was never just about technology or wealth. It was about ownership—who gets to hold it, who gets to control it, and who gets to decide what it means. At least for now, the answer is: many people, in many places, in ways that are still not fully understood.

This is not investment advice.