On July 4, 2025, a major event occurred in the Bitcoin network that shook the entire cryptocurrency market - 8 "ancient" Bitcoin addresses that had been dormant for 14 years were suddenly activated, and a total of 80,009 BTC (worth about 8.69 billion US dollars) were transferred to 8 new addresses. This event quickly became the focus of the crypto community, not only because of its huge amount of funds that could have a huge impact on the market, but also because the mysterious background of these "dormant" Bitcoins triggered various speculations about the identity of the holders. This article will comprehensively analyze the ins and outs of this event, deeply explore its potential market impact, and objectively evaluate various theories about the identity of the holders.
Starting at noon on July 4, 2025, on-chain data monitoring tools (including Arkham, Lookonchain, etc.) have successively captured a series of abnormal large-scale Bitcoin transfer activities. Eight "dormant" Bitcoin addresses that have never had any transaction records since 2011 were suddenly activated, and a total of 80,009 Bitcoins held by them were transferred in batches to eight new receiving addresses. Calculated at the current Bitcoin price, the total value of this batch of transferred assets is as high as US$8.69 billion, making it one of the largest "ancient" Bitcoin movement events in recent years.
These activated original addresses can be divided into two groups:
The first group: 2 addresses, each received 10,000 BTC (20,000 in total) on April 2, 2011, when the price of Bitcoin was only $0.78;
The second group: 6 addresses, received a total of 60,009 BTC (about 10,000 per address on average) on May 4, 2011, when the price of Bitcoin was $3.37.
This means that the holders of this batch of Bitcoins have never used these assets for more than 14 years, during which the price of Bitcoin soared from less than $4 to nearly $110,000, achieving a value increase of more than 100,000 times.
This large transfer operation shows a high degree of planning and technical proficiency. All the transferred bitcoins were not sent directly to any known exchange address, but were dispersed into 8 new SegWit (Bech32) format addresses, each of which received about 10,000 BTC. The choice of this receiving address is quite meaningful:
1. SegWit technology adopted: The new address adopts the Bech32 format, which is a more modern and efficient Bitcoin address format that supports Segregated Witness technology, which can reduce transaction fees and enhance scalability. This shows that the operator has a good understanding of the latest developments in the Bitcoin network, rather than being a technical "laggard" who has been out of the community for a long time.
2. Fund diversification strategy: The original funds are evenly distributed to multiple new addresses, each of which holds about 10,000 BTC (worth about $1.09 billion). In the view of chain analysis experts, this layout may indicate a subsequent batch disposal plan - whether it is a gradual sale, further mixing of coins, or simply for asset management optimization.
3. Transaction structure characteristics: According to CryptoQuant analyst Julio Moreno, the UTXO (unspent transaction output) source of these transactions is shown as an early block reward, and its transfer structure shows a typical miner "clearance reconstruction" feature, that is, the process of integrating multiple smaller UTXOs into a larger output.
As of July 5, 2025, these transferred bitcoins are still quietly stored in the new address, and no further action has taken place. However, major cryptocurrency exchanges and analysis platforms around the world have marked these addresses as "high-risk" monitoring objects, tracking their fund movements at any time.
The transparency of blockchain data provides researchers with a unique opportunity to deeply analyze the transfer trajectory of these 80,009 Bitcoins. By interpreting these on-chain features, we can infer the possible intentions and technical proficiency of the operators and provide a basis for predicting future behavior.
This batch of activated "ancient" addresses has several distinctive common characteristics, which provide important clues for inferring the identity of the holders. All 8 original addresses remained completely silent for a full 14 years before activation, without any transfer records in or out. Although this extreme "dormant" state is not uncommon among early Bitcoin holders, such large-scale and synchronous activation is unusual.
It is worth noting that the time when these addresses received bitcoins - April and May 2011 - was in the early development stage of Bitcoin. At that time, the Bitcoin network had just started, and the main participants were limited to cryptography enthusiasts, libertarians and technology pioneers. In April 2011, the price of Bitcoin was less than $1, and it slowly climbed to around $3 in May. Individuals who could accumulate such a large number of Bitcoins at this time are very likely directly related to Bitcoin's core development or early mining activities.
From a technical perspective, this batch of transfer transactions shows that the operator has deep knowledge and rich experience in blockchain operations. The transferred bitcoins were eventually evenly distributed to eight new addresses, with each address receiving about 10,000 BTC, a uniform distribution pattern that showed a high degree of planning and precision.
Of particular note are the technical features of the new addresses. Unlike the traditional address format (P2PKH) common in 2011, the new addresses receiving this batch of "ancient" bitcoins all use the Bech32 format, which is the Segregated Witness (SegWit) address defined in the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP 0173. SegWit was activated in 2017 and effectively solved the transaction scalability problem faced by Bitcoin by optimizing the storage of transaction signature data. The use of this modern address format shows that the operator has not only been closely following the development of the Bitcoin protocol, but also actively adopting the latest technical improvements to optimize its asset management.
For the purpose of this large-scale transfer, on-chain analysts have proposed several possible explanations:
1. Asset restructuring and management optimization: The most optimistic interpretation is that this is just a routine asset management operation. After 14 years of holding, the original wallet may have become outdated, and the holder may upgrade the wallet for security reasons or to facilitate inheritance by future generations. Spreading funds to multiple new SegWit addresses can improve privacy and management flexibility.
2. Preparations before selling: A more pessimistic view is that this may be a prelude to a large-scale sell-off. By spreading funds to multiple addresses, holders may be prepared to adopt a "batch shipment" strategy and gradually cash out on exchanges to reduce the impact on the market. Historically, similar large-scale "dormant" Bitcoin movements often indicate market fluctuations.
3. Private key leakage or ownership change: Another possibility is that the private keys of these bitcoins have been leaked recently or are controlled by new owners. Considering the 14-year time span, the original holders may have passed away, and these assets may be discovered and taken over by heirs. In addition, the possibility of hacker attacks cannot be completely ruled out, although this is less likely for long-term cold storage bitcoins.
Table: Overview of key data of Bitcoin whale transfer events
This batch of 80,009 bitcoins that were suddenly activated is like a sword of Damocles hanging over the head in the current market environment. Its potential market influence should not be underestimated. Calculated at the current price, the total value of this fund is as high as $8.69 billion, which is large enough to shake the fund balance of the entire cryptocurrency market. Market analysts generally believe that this may be the biggest potential source of selling pressure facing the Bitcoin market since the Mt.Gox Bitcoin unlocking event.
To fully understand the relative size of this money, we can compare it with other major holders in the Bitcoin market:
MicroStrategy: This public company, known for its large holdings of Bitcoin, currently holds a total of approximately 597,000 BTC. The 80,009 BTC activated this time is equivalent to 13.4% of its total holdings.
Satoshi Nakamoto's holdings: Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous founder of Bitcoin, is believed to hold approximately 1.26 million BTC (mainly from early block rewards). This batch of transferred funds is equivalent to 6.35% of Satoshi Nakamoto's known address holdings.
Bitcoin ETF: In the second quarter of 2025, the net absorption of global Bitcoin ETFs was 111,000 BTC, which means that if this giant whale decides to sell all, its selling pressure will be equivalent to 72% of the absorption of the entire ETF market in one quarter.
Listed company holdings: In Q2 2025, the total net increase in Bitcoin holdings of global listed companies was 131,000 BTC, and the holdings of giant whales were equivalent to 61% of this figure.
These are relatively clear that the size of this fund has reached a level sufficient to affect the liquidity of the entire Bitcoin market, and any selling decision by its holders will have a substantial impact on the price.
Can the current daily liquidity of the Bitcoin market absorb such a large-scale potential sell-off? Data shows that although the spot trading volume of major exchanges has increased significantly, they are still under pressure to take over:
Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, has a Bitcoin spot trading volume of about $1 billion in the past 24 hours, which means that the $8.69 billion sell-off is equivalent to its total spot trading volume on the entire platform for 8.69 full trading days.
More importantly, this scale of sell-off cannot be digested by the market in a short period of time without causing a sharp drop in prices. Trading depth data shows that even on the exchanges with the best depth, a market order of more than 1,000 BTC will cause a price slippage of 1-2%. If tens of thousands of Bitcoins are sold at the same time, the price drop may be extremely significant.
According to the model constructed by market analysts, different treatments of this money may lead to very different market results:
1. One-time concentrated selling: The most pessimistic scenario is that holders choose to sell all in a short period of time. In this case, the price of Bitcoin may suffer a "halved drop", with a drop of more than 50% in the short term, triggering a chain reaction, including forced liquidation of leveraged positions, sharp fluctuations in the derivatives market, and a rapid deterioration of market sentiment.
2. Slow shipment in batches: If holders choose to sell in batches over a longer period of time (such as 6-12 months), the market impact will be relatively mild. Assuming that no more than 5,000 BTC are sold per month (about 2-3% of the monthly trading volume of global exchanges), the market price may be subject to 10-20% of periodic pressure, but it will not lead to a systemic collapse.
3. Continue to hold: In the optimistic case, if this is just a routine wallet management operation and Bitcoin continues to remain in cold storage, the direct impact on the market will be very limited. However, the subsequent activities of these addresses will continue to be watched by the market, forming a "pending" psychological impact.
Table: Estimated impact of the potential sell-off scenario of 80,009 BTC on the market
Although these bitcoins have not flowed into the exchange as of July 5, 2025, the market has already reacted nervously. After the news came out, the price of Bitcoin fell back by about 3% in a short period of time, and the volume of short orders on mainstream exchanges increased significantly. Many trading platforms, including Binance and OKX, have included these new addresses in the special monitoring list to track the movement of funds in real time.
Institutional investors also responded quickly. Data shows that the net inflow rate of Bitcoin ETFs has slowed down after the incident was exposed, and the premium rate of Grayscale GBTC has narrowed slightly, indicating that some institutional investors have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. Many analysis agencies have issued risk warnings, advising customers to be cautious in chasing high prices at the current price to guard against potential whale selling risks.
The chief strategist of cryptocurrency hedge fund XYZ Capital said: "This scale of 'dormant' Bitcoin movement will always cause market tension. Although we don't know the ultimate intention of the holder, from a risk management perspective, investors should consider hedging downside risks, or at least reducing leverage exposure."
The sudden transfer of 80,009 Bitcoins naturally triggered heated speculation about the identity of the holder. After cross-analysis of on-chain data characteristics, Bitcoin's early history, and public information, the crypto community has gradually formed three main speculation directions. Each speculation has its supporting evidence and doubts. We will analyze the rationality of these theories one by one.
The most accepted explanation in the industry is that these bitcoins belong to an independent miner or a small group of miners in the early Bitcoin network. Coinbase executive Conor Grogan pointed out on the X platform that this batch of funds is very likely to come from a single miner in 2011, who integrated 180 mining reward blocks at the time and had a wallet address containing 200,000 bitcoins in 2011.
The on-chain evidence supporting this theory is quite strong:
Block reward source: CryptoQuant research director Julio Moreno analyzed that the UTXO (unspent transaction output) of the transaction can be traced back to the early block rewards, and its transfer structure shows the typical characteristics of miners' "clearing and reconstruction".
Mining era characteristics: In 2011, Bitcoin mining was extremely easy and ordinary CPUs could participate. At that time, each block rewarded 50 BTC and there was almost no competition. Early miners could accumulate a large number of Bitcoins in a very short period of time.
Holding mode: This long-term holding and almost "forgetting" mode is consistent with the attitude of early technology idealists towards Bitcoin - they see Bitcoin as a social experiment or future currency rather than a speculative asset.
If this theory is true, the miner's wealth at current prices will reach a staggering $22 billion, making him one of the richest individual holders in Bitcoin history. However, this also raises new questions: Why choose to activate these addresses now, 14 years later? Possible explanations include estate planning, private key backup updates, or a decision to finally cash out part of the wealth.
In the Chinese community, many people associate these bitcoins with the long-lost legend in the currency circle - Friedcat (real name Jiang Xinyu). Friedcat is a genius who graduated from the Youth Class of the University of Science and Technology of China. He was admitted to the University of Science and Technology of China at the age of 15 and later went to Yale University for a visiting scholar. In 2012, he launched a crowdfunding campaign on the BitcoinTalk forum under the name "friedcat" and successfully founded ASICminer, becoming one of the earliest entrepreneurs to develop Bitcoin-specific mining machines.
Friedcat's mining machines once occupied 42% of the computing power of the global Bitcoin network, and the company was hailed as the "dominant player in the mining circle" and enjoyed unlimited glory. However, he suddenly disappeared mysteriously at the end of 2014 and his whereabouts are still unknown, and no public clues have been left. His sudden disappearance and close connection with the early days of Bitcoin naturally led people to speculate that this batch of "dormant" Bitcoins may be related to him.
However, this theory has several obvious timeline contradictions:
Time mismatch: This batch of activated Bitcoins was first received in April 2011, while FriedCat's Bitcoin activities (according to public records) began in 2012. FriedCat only started to develop mining machines and obtain a large amount of Bitcoin income in 2012.
Address feature mismatch: FriedCat's known public address activities began in 2013, and its transaction pattern is more in line with the characteristics of mining machine sales income rather than early mining rewards.
Technical differences: FriedCat is mainly active in the BitcoinTalk forum and domestic forums, while the address transferred this time shows the style of "independent miners", and there are differences in the technical behavior patterns of the two.
Therefore, although the legendary story of FriedCat is fascinating, based on the existing evidence, it is unlikely that these bitcoins belong to him.
In the Western community, many people speculate that these bitcoins may be related to Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin evangelist. Roger Ver was dubbed the "Bitcoin Jesus" for his early active promotion of Bitcoin. He began investing in Bitcoin in 2011 and was one of the first entrepreneurs to accept Bitcoin payments (MemoryDealers.com). He also invested in many early Bitcoin projects such as BitPay, Ripple, and Blockchain.info.
Some of the evidence supporting this speculation includes:
Time coincidence: Roger Ver has indeed been heavily involved in Bitcoin activities since 2011, which is consistent with the creation time of these addresses.
Legal Pressure: Roger Ver is currently facing tax evasion charges from the IRS involving an amount of up to $48 million, and may face extradition and criminal penalties. This may be his motivation for using early assets to deal with the legal crisis.
Libertarian Beliefs: Roger Ver is a well-known libertarian, and it is in line with his philosophy to hold a large amount of Bitcoin for a long time and not sell it easily.
However, this theory lacks direct on-chain evidence. Roger Ver himself has publicly stated that he will not use early assets, and his existing known cold wallets have no obvious connection with these activated addresses. Community speculation is more based on his legal dilemma and time coincidences rather than substantive evidence.
In addition, the operating style of these addresses (such as SegWit adoption) does not fully match Roger Ver's known technical preferences. Therefore, although this speculation is widely circulated on social media, it is generally emotional and speculative.
In addition to the above three main speculations, analysts have also proposed several other possibilities:
1. Early exchange or service provider funds: It may be the residual funds in the cold wallets of the closed early Bitcoin exchanges (such as Mt.Gox). However, such funds usually have more complex transaction histories, which do not match the "miner reward" characteristics of this batch of funds.
2. Satoshi Nakamoto-related addresses: Some people speculate that this may be related to Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous founder of Bitcoin. However, Satoshi Nakamoto's known mining activities were concentrated in 2009-2010, and the technical characteristics of this batch of addresses (such as the activity started in 2011) do not match Satoshi Nakamoto's mining period.
3. Legal seizure or estate execution: It may be assets seized by judicial authorities or "lost" bitcoins discovered by estate executors. The people who held bitcoins in 2011 may have passed away now, and these assets may be discovered and taken over by heirs.
4. Long-term investment institutions: Very few early investment institutions may have configured bitcoins in 2011. But at that time, almost no professional investment institutions were interested in bitcoins, and it is unlikely that institutional investors would not operate at all for 14 years.
Historical comparison and industry enlightenment: the laws and impacts of ancient bitcoin movement
This is not the first time that similar large-scale "dormant" bitcoin activation events have occurred in the more than ten years since the Bitcoin network was running. By analyzing historical cases, we can identify certain regular features and assess the long-term impact of such events on the cryptocurrency ecosystem. The transfer of 80,009 BTC has left another case in the history of Bitcoin development that deserves in-depth study.
In recent years, the Bitcoin network has experienced several events in which "ancient" Bitcoins have been activated, but the scale and background vary:
1. Dormant whales in November 2024: Two "dormant" addresses holding 404 and 429 BTC (a total of $80.77 million) were activated after 10.9 years of silence. Similar to this incident, these Bitcoins also came from the early stages (around 2011), but on a much smaller scale. The market reaction was relatively mild at the time, and analysts believed that such small-scale activations had limited impact on the overall market.
2. The so-called "Satoshi" Bitcoin movement: Bitcoin research organization BTCparser has theorized that Satoshi may have resumed mining in 2010 under another identity and accumulated thousands of BTC. The "2010 whale" is said to have strategically sold Bitcoin since 2019, and has transferred a total of 24,000 BTC by November 2024. This planned cash-out behavior contrasts with the one-time large-scale transfer of this event.
3. Bitcoin release by Mt.Gox creditors: As one of the most famous Bitcoin unlocking events in history, the Bitcoin repayment process after the bankruptcy of Mt.Gox has had a long-term impact on the market. Unlike this event, Mt.Gox's Bitcoin was widely distributed and clearly expected, while the control of the 80,009 BTC this time is completely concentrated in the hands of a single individual or entity.
By comparison, it can be found that the uniqueness of this event lies in its large scale and long holding time. 80,009 BTC suddenly moved after 14 years of holding, setting a new record for the single activation of "dormant" Bitcoin. This scale of fund movement, even if it is not immediately sold on the exchange, will have a profound impact on market psychology.
Behavioral patterns of long-term holders
There is a class of long-term holders in the Bitcoin network called "Diamond Hands", who are able to withstand market fluctuations and hold Bitcoin for a long time without selling it easily. Through the behavioral analysis of these holders, several common patterns can be identified:
1. Technical idealists: Bitcoin attracted many technical idealists in its early days, who viewed Bitcoin as a social experiment or a future monetary system. Such holders are often the most likely to hold for a long time and will not consider using it until major changes occur to the individual or family (such as health problems or estate planning).
2. Libertarians: Influenced by the Austrian School of Economics, many early Bitcoin holders are staunch libertarians who see Bitcoin as a tool to combat fiat currency inflation. Such holders usually adopt a "buy and hold forever" strategy and will not sell unless faced with extreme circumstances (such as legal crises or survival needs).
3. Institutional and fund investors: Professional Bitcoin investors that have emerged in recent years (such as listed companies, ETFs, and investment funds) usually have clear fund management strategies. Their buying and selling decisions are more based on cash flow needs and risk balance rather than long-term holding concepts.
The holders in this incident clearly belong to the first two categories of early participants. It is extremely rare in the volatile cryptocurrency market to be able to buy or mine a large amount of Bitcoin in 2011 and hold it until now. This kind of determination is extremely rare. This also makes the market pay special attention to their final decision-if such "diamond hands" choose to sell, does it mean that Bitcoin has reached a certain long-term valuation peak?
The sudden activation of such a large-scale Bitcoin will have multi-level impacts on the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem:
1. Impact on market structure and liquidity:
Increasing the actual circulating supply of Bitcoin may change the short-term supply and demand balance
Prompt exchanges and market makers to adjust liquidity provision strategies and guard against potential large-scale sell-offs
May give rise to a new over-the-counter block trading market and reduce the direct impact on the spot market
2. Increased regulatory and compliance attention:
Attracting the attention of regulators to large Bitcoin holders, which may strengthen transaction monitoring
Increasing requirements for cryptocurrency tax compliance, especially capital gains tax collection for long-term holders
Encourage exchanges to improve large transaction reporting systems and prevent market manipulation
3. Evolution of technology and security practices:
Highlight the technical challenges of long-term custody of private keys and promote more robust multi-signature and inheritance solutions
Promote the advancement of on-chain analysis tools and improve the early warning capabilities of large fund movements
May accelerate the adoption of privacy technologies (such as CoinJoin) and help large holders reduce market impact
4. Changes in investor psychology and behavior:
Shake the absoluteness of the "HODL" culture and encourage investors to evaluate long-term holding strategies more rationally
Increase market awareness of "supply shocks" and make price models pay more attention to actual circulation rather than total supply
Hailing from the universe of Cats & Soup, a hit mobile game, the story of the Early Retired Cats is almost as whimsical as watching cats busy themselves with soup ingredients in the game's Starry Cat Village.
DavinRetik Finance sparks a DeFi revolution, dominating presales and projecting explosive price surges. From Certik-certified security to Coinmarketcap recognition, it's set to lead in 2024.
JoyExplore the groundbreaking launch of Jupiter's LFG Launchpad Beta on the X platform. A strategic collaboration between Ovols and Jupiter introduces the Meme currency and JUP token, revolutionizing the crypto world. Dive into a future where innovation meets opportunity
BrianExplore the groundbreaking partnership between Mysten Labs and Alibaba Cloud, and how their collaborative efforts are empowering Move developers and revolutionizing the Sui platform through innovative services and community engagement.
WeiliangGas Hero, Find Satoshi Lab's web3 game, has seen an impressive $90 million in NFT trading within a month, featuring diverse collections and strategic incentives. Polygon Labs expresses optimism, highlighting Gas Hero's broad appeal and success as a key player in the evolving landscape of web3 gaming.
JoyExplore the dramatic surge in the value of the TRUMP meme token, intricately linked to a crypto wallet named after Donald Trump. From its speculative beginnings to a staggering market capitalization, delve into the volatile interplay between cryptocurrency, political events, and meme culture.
MiyukiThe U.K. Supreme Court denies Craig Wright's appeal in his libel case against Peter McCormack, upholding a nominal 1 GBP damage award.
BrianSwan Bitcoin expands into mining, targets public trading, emphasizes financial prudence, and forges strategic partnerships, all while navigating the uncertain waters of market dynamics and regulations.
WeiliangJPMorgan's analysis points to a potential stabilisation in Bitcoin's valuation, post the GBTC sell-off whirlwind. The market's next moves, while uncertain, are watched with a keen, analytical eye.
MiyukiBONK and WIF, memecoins on the Solana blockchain, experience dramatic shifts in market positions, reflecting the volatile nature of the crypto market.
Brian