bitunix

Spent Outputs Aged 2y–3y

Range
  • 1M1M
  • 3M3M
  • 6M6M
  • 1Y1Y
  • ALLALL
Scale
  • LinearLinear
  • LogLog
Latest
11.73K
2026-10-27 · 11,731
1D change
-31.74%
Prev. 17.19K
7D change
-39.64%
Prev. 19.43K
30D change
-31.75%
Prev. 17.19K
4Y percentile
75%
All history 92%
All-time high
199.2K
2022-06-26 · -94.11%
1Y range
3.17K – 116.64K
Since 2009-01-12
Loading data…

About this metric

What it measures

Spent Outputs Aged 2y–3y counts outputs used as transaction inputs each day after two to three years without being spent. The result is an output count, isolating reactivation after a multi-year holding interval rather than the value of those coins.

How to read it

A sustained rise indicates a broader run of spending from this age window; isolated jumps show concentrated reactivation on individual days. The series reached 199,197 on June 26, 2022, with BTC around $21,497, so its largest recorded count was not confined to a high-price market phase.

The data does not establish whether those transfers were sales, reorganizations or custody changes. The eligible stock depends on outputs created years earlier, and a two-year minimum age creates structural zeros at the start; use recent-period baselines and BTC volume instead of treating full-history rank as a spending rate.

Frequency
Daily (UTC 00:00)
Asset
BTC
Type
Single value
Data since
2009-01-12
Latest data
2026-10-27
Data points
6,498

FAQ

Does spending after two to three years always imply a profit?

No. Coin age alone says nothing about the creation price relative to the spending price. Realized profit and loss data are needed to determine the gain or loss.

What happened at the largest recorded count?

The data records 199,197 qualifying outputs on June 26, 2022. It identifies the size and date of the count, but not the ownership or purpose of the transactions.

Can one holder cause a large multi-year output spike?

Yes. A wallet can accumulate many separate outputs and later consume them together or across several transactions. A large count therefore need not imply a similarly large number of holders.