Bitcoin price prediction as Arkham data exposes who really controls BTC supply
Bitcoin is attempting to find its footing around the $68,000 area after a violent pullback, but the more important story is no longer on the intraday chart. On-chain ownership data from Arkham Intelligence suggests that a relatively small group of entities still dominates Bitcoin’s circulating supply – and that concentration could dictate whether the next major move is a breakout to new highs or a deeper correction.
After trading in the mid‑$90,000 range earlier this year, BTC slid to a local low near $60,000 before buyers stepped back in. The rebound has pushed price into a sideways consolidation band, yet it remains lodged below the 50‑day simple moving average, currently hovering around $83,000. That moving average now serves as a dynamic ceiling for price: unless bulls can reclaim and hold it, any attempt at a sustained uptrend will likely run into selling pressure.
The daily chart still carries the scars of the recent sell‑off. Late January and early February were marked by persistent distribution, culminating in a capitulation‑style candle that briefly pushed BTC toward $60,000. A quick reflex rally followed, but the rebound has been more about short‑covering and opportunistic dip‑buying than a full‑fledged trend reversal.
Momentum indicators echo that caution. The Chaikin Money Flow (CMF) sits marginally in negative territory around -0.03, implying that, on balance, more capital has been flowing out of Bitcoin than into it over recent sessions. Price has stabilized, and intraday volatility has cooled, but the data suggests conviction from fresh buyers is still lacking. In other words, the sell‑off may have paused, but the market has not yet flipped decisively back to risk‑on.
Beneath this fragile short‑term structure, however, Arkham’s ownership breakdown reveals a longer‑term dynamic that many traders overlook: Bitcoin remains heavily concentrated in the hands of a few large players. That concentration not only shapes liquidity and volatility, it also acts as a structural constraint on supply whenever those holders choose not to move their coins.
According to Arkham’s 2026 figures, the original creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, still controls roughly 1.096 million BTC across early mining‑era wallets – more than 5% of total eventual supply. These coins have never budged, not during bull markets, not during crashes, not even amid historic speculative manias. As a result, they are effectively removed from active circulation unless that behavior changes, which would itself be a market‑shaking event.
Alongside Satoshi’s dormant stash, a small cluster of exchanges, corporations and funds command a massive share of the remaining float. Coinbase holds close to 1 million BTC, while Binance manages more than 600,000 BTC in custody. On the institutional side, one of the largest spot Bitcoin exchange‑traded funds, run by BlackRock, alone owns upward of 760,000 BTC. Strategy (the rebranded MicroStrategy) has accumulated more than 400,000 BTC as part of its treasury reserve strategy. The United States government, through seizures and enforcement actions over the years, also controls more than 300,000 BTC.
This level of concentration matters for price behavior. When coins sit in the hands of long‑term holders that rarely move them, the effective tradable supply – the amount realistically available to meet new demand – shrinks. Satoshi’s coins function almost like a permanent deadweight: they exist, but the market largely treats them as if they do not. Corporate treasuries and spot ETFs operate similarly, albeit with more flexibility. Their holdings are typically governed by board decisions, mandates, or product structures that favor long‑term allocation over rapid trading.
In practical terms, that means much of Bitcoin’s supply is locked up in entities that are not actively chasing intraday moves. During phases of rising demand, this can create a classic supply squeeze: a limited number of coins are actually available for buyers, amplifying the impact of each incremental dollar flowing into BTC. Conversely, when one of these large holders decides to reduce its position or when government‑held coins hit auction, the market must suddenly absorb an outsized wave of supply.
Exchange balances add another layer to the picture. While Coinbase and Binance hold enormous quantities of BTC, those reserves are primarily liquidity for customers. As long as exchange‑held balances remain high, the order books can absorb buying and selling without extreme slippage. But if those exchange reserves decline sharply – for instance, because users are withdrawing to cold storage while ETFs and long‑term institutions are steadily accumulating – the freely floating supply tightens rapidly.
In that kind of environment, even moderate net inflows can have disproportionate price effects. A relatively small surge in spot demand can push BTC higher at a faster clip because fewer coins are available at each price level. That is the dynamic that often underpins “melt‑up” phases in bull markets, when price accelerates upward seemingly out of proportion to the visible buying.
On the technical side, traders are watching a few key levels that may decide Bitcoin’s next major leg. The 50‑day simple moving average near $83,000 remains the primary pivot. A clean breakout above it, backed by expanding volume and a shift of CMF into positive territory, would signal that capital is flowing back into the market and that buyers are willing to chase price higher. Under that scenario, a retest of the mid‑$90,000 zone becomes a realistic objective, with the potential to challenge or exceed previous highs if macro and on‑chain flows align.
Failure to regain that moving average, however, leaves BTC vulnerable to another downside test. The $65,000 zone has emerged as a near‑term support region; losing it on a daily closing basis could invite a return toward $60,000. Below that, psychological and structural levels around the high‑$50,000s would be next in focus. In such a drawdown, the reaction of large holders and ETF managers would be critical: do they treat it as a buying opportunity, or do redemptions and forced selling add fuel to the decline?
From a structural standpoint, whale dominance suggests that long‑term supply is naturally constrained as long as these large players maintain their positions. Many corporate treasuries and ETF vehicles are designed to hold through volatility, and Satoshi’s coins remain untouched. If institutional appetite re‑accelerates while these whales stay mostly inactive, the setup tilts toward renewed upward price pressure as demand runs into a rigid supply wall.
At the same time, concentration is a double‑edged sword. A market in which a handful of entities control a large share of supply is more sensitive to their decisions. Announcements of major sales, liquidations, or government auctions can jolt sentiment and trigger cascades of reactive selling. For traders and investors, monitoring wallet activity associated with large custodians, ETFs, and government addresses becomes as important as watching standard chart indicators.
One underappreciated factor in today’s environment is the behavior of ETF flows. When spot ETFs experience sustained inflows, they must buy more Bitcoin to back newly issued shares, often in size and under time pressure. This systematic demand can act like a persistent bid under the market. On the other hand, extended outflows force ETFs to offload BTC, temporarily increasing supply hitting the market. Combining data on ETF flows with Arkham’s ownership map gives a clearer view of which side of the supply‑demand equation is winning at any given moment.
Macro conditions will also shape how this supply structure translates into price. If global risk sentiment improves, interest rates stabilize or decline, and liquidity returns to risk assets, Bitcoin’s hard‑capped supply and concentrated ownership could turn into a powerful bullish narrative again. In a risk‑off environment, however, even structurally tight supply may not prevent sharp drawdowns if investors rush to raise cash across their portfolios.
For longer‑term participants, the current setup poses a strategic question rather than a purely speculative one: is it better to align with the behavior of entrenched whales and institutional holders – treating volatility as noise within a broader structural uptrend – or to trade aggressively around key technical levels and sentiment swings? The answer depends on time horizon and risk tolerance, but understanding who actually holds the coins and how likely they are to move them is now as important as any indicator on a price chart.
In the coming months, the decisive move in Bitcoin will likely be determined by two intertwined forces: the return (or absence) of net capital inflows and the stance of the largest holders. If fresh money flows back into BTC while whales, ETFs, and long‑term treasuries remain mostly on the sidelines, supply pressure could quickly tilt in favor of a renewed rally. If inflows remain muted or turn negative while any of these big players start distributing, the market may have to digest another leg down or a prolonged sideways grind.
For now, Bitcoin sits at a crossroads: technically capped below key moving averages, yet supported by a structurally tight and highly concentrated supply. How those opposing forces resolve will define whether the next major headline is about a push beyond the old highs – or a deeper test of the market’s conviction.