bitunix

Supply Held by Addresses with 1K–10K BTC

Range
  • 1M1M
  • 3M3M
  • 6M6M
  • 1Y1Y
  • ALLALL
Scale
  • LinearLinear
  • LogLog
Latest
4.2M
2026-10-27 · 4,196,491.3076 · BTC
1D change
+0.22%
Prev. 4.19M
7D change
+0.11%
Prev. 4.19M
30D change
+0.75%
Prev. 4.17M
4Y percentile
5%
All history 57%
All-time high
5.57M
2021-02-05 · -24.60%
1Y range
4.15M – 4.34M
Since 2009-01-03
Loading data…

About this metric

What it measures

Supply Held by Addresses with 1K–10K BTC totals BTC at addresses assigned to the 1,000–10,000 BTC balance band on each date. It is a coin amount for a large-address group, without adjusting for common ownership across multiple addresses.

How to read it

An increase means more supply sits in this large-wallet band, while a decline means less remains there. The series reached about 5.566 million BTC on February 5, 2021, compared with about 4.204 million BTC on October 17, 2026. Reading it next to the 100–1K and 10K–100K BTC groups helps distinguish a move in one band from a broader change across large addresses.

Calling every address a whale can obscure exchanges and pooled custody, while one large holder may control many addresses. A wallet crossing a band boundary can shift its entire balance into another group, so neither a falling total nor divergence from adjacent groups proves distribution by identifiable large investors.

Frequency
Daily (UTC 00:00)
Asset
BTC
Category
Addresses
Type
Single value
Unit
BTC
Data since
2009-01-03
Latest data
2026-10-27
Data points
6,507

FAQ

Why is 1,000 BTC often used to discuss whales?

It is a convenient large-balance cutoff, not a protocol rule or proof of a single wealthy owner. This chart further limits the group to the 1,000–10,000 BTC band.

Can this band shrink because coins move into still larger addresses?

Yes. Consolidation can take addresses beyond 10,000 BTC and reassign their balances to another group. A decline is therefore not enough to conclude that large holders reduced their overall BTC.

Is this an entity-adjusted measure of large holders?

No. It groups individual addresses by balance without linking all addresses belonging to one owner. Custody pooling and address splitting can change the series even when economic ownership stays the same.