Holder Accumulation Ratio
- 1M1M
- 3M3M
- 6M6M
- 1Y1Y
- ALLALL
- LineareLineare
- LogaritmicaLogaritmica
Informazioni sulla metrica
Cosa misura
Holder Accumulation Ratio divides the number of retained holding addresses with rising balances by the combined number with rising or falling balances. Unchanged balances are excluded, and the result is displayed as a percentage: above 50%, balance increases outnumber decreases within this group.
Come leggerlo
A rising ratio means balance increases are becoming more common relative to decreases among retained addresses whose balances changed. It was about 47.99% at the May 2020 halving and 62.23% at the April 2024 halving, so the same cycle landmark has not implied a fixed accumulation reading. On October 17, 2026, it was about 54.69%, below the full-history median of 62.89%.
Each address has equal weight regardless of how much BTC moved, and flat-balance holders are outside the denominator. The ratio can exceed 50% even if a few large reductions outweigh many small additions in BTC terms. Transfers within one owner's wallets also change balances; this is not the share of all holders buying, nor the share of accumulation-classified addresses.
- Frequenza
- Giornaliero (UTC 00:00)
- Asset
- BTC
- Categoria
- Indirizzi
- Tipo
- Valore singolo
- Dati dal
- 2009-01-03
- Dati più recenti
- 2026-10-28
- Punti dati
- 6,467
FAQ
What does a Holder Accumulation Ratio of 50% mean?
Among retained holders with changing balances, the number increasing their balance equals the number reducing it. It does not mean half of all funded addresses accumulated.
Can the ratio rise while the group loses BTC overall?
Yes. It counts addresses, not the size of their balance changes. Many small increases can outnumber a few large decreases while the combined BTC balance still falls.
Why does the history include readings of 0% and 100%?
The ratio reaches an endpoint when changing retained balances all move in one direction. The record of 100% on February 15, 2009 came from Bitcoin's tiny early address population and is not a useful modern benchmark.
