Percent of Addresses in Profit
- 1M1M
- 3M3M
- 6M6M
- 1Y1Y
- ALLALL
- LinearLinear
- LogLog
About this metric
What it measures
Percent of Addresses in Profit divides the number of addresses whose balance value exceeds its estimated on-chain cost by all addresses with a non-zero balance. Costs use last-moved coin prices; the raw ratio runs from 0 to 1 and is displayed as 0% to 100%.
How to read it
Near 100%, estimated paper profits are widespread across addresses; falling readings mean a larger share no longer clears its cost. The ratio fell to about 44.2% on December 13, 2018 and 49.5% on November 21, 2022, while its 2024 maximum was almost 100%. These observations describe profit breadth, not a universal cycle threshold.
Every address has equal weight, so many small profitable balances can outweigh a few large loss-making ones in this percentage. Cost estimates can be reset by self-transfers and do not capture trades inside exchanges; a high reading says little about the dollar size of gains or their likely realization. The zero readings in 2009 predate a usable market-price history and should not be read as evidence that all addresses were at a loss.
- Frequency
- Daily (UTC 00:00)
- Asset
- BTC
- Category
- Addresses
- Type
- Single value
- Data since
- 2009-01-03
- Latest data
- 2026-10-27
- Data points
- 6,507
FAQ
Why does a raw reading of 0.80144 mean about 80.14%?
The stored value is a fraction. The chart multiplies it by 100 for percentage display, so 0.80144 becomes 80.144%, or about 80.14% after rounding.
How does address profit percentage differ from Percent Supply in Profit?
The address percentage gives each funded address one vote, based on its aggregate estimated profitability. Percent Supply in Profit weights each coin by amount, so the two can diverge when large and small balances have different costs.
Does a reading below 50% mean most bitcoin is at a loss?
It means fewer than half of funded addresses qualify as profitable, not that most BTC is held at a loss. Coin-weighted supply metrics are needed to answer the latter question.
