bitunix

Addresses in Loss

Intervall
  • 1M1M
  • 3M3M
  • 6M6M
  • 1Y1Y
  • ALLALL
Skala
  • LineærLineær
  • LogaritmiskLogaritmisk
Siste
1D-endring
7D-endring
30D-endring
4Y-persentil
Høyeste nivå noensinne
1Y-intervall
Laster inn data…

Om denne måleverdien

Hva den måler

Addresses in Loss counts funded Bitcoin addresses whose estimated holding cost is above the current BTC price. Cost is inferred from the prices at which their coins last moved on-chain; each qualifying address counts once, regardless of balance or loss size.

Slik leser du den

A rising count means unrealized losses are spreading across more addresses; a falling count means fewer are underwater, through price recovery, transfers or changing cost bases. The record was about 21.89 million on November 21, 2022, when BTC was about $16,291. The count stood at about 11.38 million on October 17, 2026, above the 6.09 million recorded a year earlier but below that 2022 extreme.

This measures the number of affected addresses, not the BTC or dollars lost. Network growth makes absolute counts across cycles less comparable, and on-chain transfers approximate acquisition cost rather than proving an actual purchase. One investor can control many underwater addresses, and custodial trades may not change on-chain costs.

Frekvens
Daglig (UTC 00:00)
Aktiva
BTC
Kategori
Adresser
Type
Enkeltverdi
Data siden
2009-01-03
Nyeste data
2026-10-28

FAQ

How are Addresses in Loss different from Supply in Loss?

Addresses in Loss gives one count to each qualifying address. Supply in Loss totals underwater BTC, so a small address and a large custodian have very different weights in the two measures.

Are these realized losses?

No. They are paper losses relative to estimated on-chain costs while balances remain held. The count does not show whether coins have been sold or how large a loss was realized.

When did Bitcoin have the most addresses in loss?

The recorded high is about 21.89 million addresses on November 21, 2022, with BTC near $16,291. That is an absolute-count record, not proof that the largest percentage of holders was underwater.