Topic: 90% of bitcoin is owned by 2% of user base (Read 538 times)

There's nothing to get astonished or worried, because similar is the scenario with every form of investment. Maybe it can be stocks, forex, real estate, etc. A small difference 2± can be found. This is much about the money holding. Early adopters have a good volume and same is with the late jumpers who had good money backing to invest.

2% of user base...

In 2021 the estimations says there are 106,000,000 people who own Bitcoins, so the 2% of that is 212,000 users. who have 90% of the coins, it doesn't looks like something weird because the early investors still holding high amounts.


Source: https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoin-users/

It may have meant that 90% of the changes were caused by whales, and the remaining 2% by ordinary users.

And yes, bitcoin is valuable for the majority because its instability allows many holders to make a profit.

I think this isn't totally accurate. 90% is just too much and I don't think even the whales themselves can have so much bitcoin. There are still unmined btc left and also many people are hodling their btc tight. They won't let the whales get them no matter how hard they manipulate this market.

Indeed. It's hard to predict the value of a coin when someone is manipulating it but like some users said on this thread, whales do have some contributions somehow. It's also possible to survive, I mean we can still be able to profit but only those who can panic are newbies that don't take time to do a research. There are environmentalist who are against btc saying it's not friendly to the environment so the use of renewable energy for btc is being pushed. This is a good thing actually.

Another matrix of opinion generated from half-truths that periodically wanders looking for answers or attracting distraction, the data it provides is wrong, but perhaps it is its priority idea to avoid the objective reality by publishing its "out of context".

On the other hand, there is always a kind of crybabys wandering around the idea that an important part of bitcoin is concentrated in a small number of users, it is somewhat true, no problem, they came first, it happens with any asset, the confidence of the initial investors has its benefits, anyway at present day, buy!, you do not look in the rearview mirror at those who have more or those who have less, buy! or hodl! that is, this is corresponds make today to you for your economic capacity and confidence, is easy understand.

Even with such a kind of holding the market haven't gone into the control of a group of Whales. This is the real potential of the technology. To some extent the whales have got the ability to manipulate the market, beyond that it is the 2% that have the ability to keep everything working par without any difference for the Whales and the rest of the holders. Anyhow there is no clear data to mention the Whales and common users in the market.

I think, the main issue here is, who really controls Bitcoin? Despite the huge gap between how much wealth the top two wallet holders have compared to everyone else, they still own more than 90% of Bitcoins collectively. This gives a certain group of individuals unprecedented power over the entire network.

Even if 90% of Bitcoin really is owned by 2% of the addresses, I wouldn't like a even distribution (may I say communist) approach to dividing the coins among everyone. First of all, that would wreck the scarcity of Bitcoin and cause the prices to tumble to almost zero. Second, who are we to challenge a person for owning a lot of Bitcoin? There is nothing wrong with that. Satoshi himself owns more than 1/7th of the entire bitcoin supply, or so I heard.

Really dude that is a bold statement as when i saw the topic i was like is this really possible 🤣 but then i realized omg 😱 similar to the google now BTT is also Click demanding haha as click betting  to get response there.

I am sure 😊 that BTT already made many good topics related to Ponzi schemes but still i think 🤔 i should cover it here. Bitcoin is perfect thats it bro.

For those who want to find an excuse, there is always something, and it doesn't have to be exclusively the price, but also opinions that have taken root very well over the years and become part of the mainstream. Whether it is that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, a dirty industry that destroys the environment, a tool used by drug dealers and other criminals to the fact that Bitcoin is some kind of anarchist idea created to destroy the existing financial system.

If it's only about the price, I earned my first Bitcoin without investing a single cent by spending a couple of hours a day on faucets and anyone could do that. Some may call it a waste of time, but considering the price then and a few years later, I still think it was time well spent.

I have the impression that you have erroneous information. Many here on the forum would be grateful if you share a link to the source of your information that whales control 90% of all mined bitcoins. Then we could discuss and debate on this topic. Also, it seems to me that you have not quite the right idea about btc. I can recommend that you read the discussions on this forum and maybe your opinion about bitcoin will change for the better.

By the way, which two 1.5 hour videos are you talking about?

And what makes you think that the 2% Bitcoin movement belongs to just one few wallets, and among such wallets are exchanged hot wallets that have to transact thousands of Bitcoins, and as we are well aware that most whales do tell up to the such amount as claimed in this post.

To arrive at such a conclusion on Bitcoin control and wallet balances, a lot of data need to be accessing evaluated, to be able to come up with a clear conclusion on that.

So basically you will need to back up your claims with enough evidence to support your argument.

On Bitcoin decentralization and clean energy, we have good development in that direction as the Proof of work environments becoming decentralized in terms of energy generation and consumption.

If you're claiming something then it is important to provide the appropriate evidence as well to claim.

AFAIK, bitcoin distributed more among the investors in recent years and with more people entering the concentration will be diluted and whales are also losing their manipulation power.

Early investors didn't actually lose their money, they just sold it too early when it reaches double and triple digits still its like 100x profits for them so we can't consider this as a loss.

You seems like trying to say if Bitcoin are controlled and manipulated to 2% of user base, while the truth is actually not.

If a rich person want to bought all of Bitcoin in order to manipulate the market, he can't because Bitcoin price will increase since there's no many users have Bitcoin willing to sell with cheap price. Of course this make the rich person need to increase his buy order to the price where the holders are want too. It's mean Bitcoin price will increase higher and higher, so if the rich person want to sell his Bitcoin on the highest price, it will benefit for the market since he's sell Bitcoin at the highest price.

The funny thing is that people were complaining about "early mover advantage" back then too and claimed that $200 is too much since they've lost the opportunity to buy bitcoin "cheap". Complaining about the same thing now at $20k isn't any different and they'll do it again in the future when price is $200k and $2 million too, instead of buying bitcoin now!

Exchange portfolios are included in this chart. So it doesn't take much to say what's in the title. But even so, I believe this ratio is still better than that of many fiat currencies.

The OP's claim, aside from the fact that he has not been able to prove it and is most likely false comes from the communist minded garbage that comes to say that the world is very unequal and the solution is going to be a politician confiscating wealth from those who have the most to distribute it to those who have the least.

The nonsense is such that I get tired of repeating it ad nauseam but here we go. To begin with, it starts from the false conception of wealth according to which wealth is like a cake, and then, if the rich get richer, they take part of the cake away from the poor and then they are poorer. The garbage of this conception cannot explain why then today almost 8 billion people live on earth, poverty has been reduced everywhere, especially hunger, and there are more than 60 million millionaires.

According to Marx's capital this is impossible to have happened.

In order to deceive people into believing that the world is in a very bad way because of inequality, they change the terms and want people to believe that a poor person today is like a poor person in 1800, when the quality of life of a poor person in a developed country is much better.

As for Bitcoin, the same people who complain about inequality are those who from the beginning said that Bitcoin is a scam, a ponzi scheme, etc. and who now see that Bitcoin is not going to disappear, but has come to stay, they start to protest about how unfair it is that some have more than others. But above all, what pisses them off is that a redistributionist politician cannot confiscate Bitcoin to supposedly redistribute it. I say supposedly because in the redistribution the politician is much more favored than the others to whom he redistributes. We only have to look at the inequality between the billionaire politicians of Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea and their poor citizens.

Because of course, they don't like to talk about merit and things like that. Like the merit of having bought Bitcoins 10 years ago and HODLed them, at least a good part of them to this day. No, for them that's unfair and the state, through a socialist, or worse, communist politician, has to confiscate it and redistribute.

Investing in Bitcoin is higher than ever. Moreover, now big institutional investors are willing to invest here. They are so convinced about Bitcoin that they are willing to invest almost all of their wealth in it. Knowing that there is a possibility of loss, their huge investment inspires everyone else. As a result we have seen a bullish trend in Bitcoin in the past. Hope that the next Bull run will surpass previous record and add new dimensions. Today, about 2 percent of the world's investors hold about 90 percent of bitcoins. But those who hold 10 percent they are worried about it.

In relation to Bitcoin, I would still emphasize that the rich and powerful did not have the advantage of being the first, because the first was Satoshi and his close associates, and then those who at that time and in the years after managed to realize that Bitcoin is a lot more than what some rich people thought it was. Even 7 or 8 years after Bitcoin was created, most people could afford to buy half or even one whole BTC, because $200 or $400 is not much money for most people in the developed world.

I think that the big players started to take a serious interest only after the 2017 bull run, so I rightly wonder why someone complains that the distribution was (or still is) unfair considering the time that has passed since the first block...

Envy towards early adopters is therefore completely irrational in my opinion, as are the claims made by people like the OP who try to convince themselves (and others) that Bitcoin is just another online scam that will make 2% of people rich while everyone else will fail.

Makes us think that it’s getting to same thing as we seen or experience in the real world. The richest club is in 1% and rest of it just strained out residue!! Now if this claim comes up to be true then we are done, they have injected themselves into the crypto space and now they are the top 2% in their. 
But I do believe that this could be inclusive of big exchangers, institutional investors with thousands to million bitcoins in holding. Surely that makes up some of it so we don’t have to worry about someone manipulating the market just like that. Since it would be public holdings and they can’t sell it just like that.