ARKHAM TRACKS 78% OF STRATEGY’S BITCOIN
Arkham Intelligence says it has tracked about 78% of the Bitcoin held by Strategy, worth USD 55.78 billion. Its profile covers roughly 1,600 addresses holding 478,199 BTC, plus USD 15.5 billion marked within Fidelity Custody.
My take: this on-chain visibility matters because it gives the market a clearer view of how a corporate BTC treasury accumulates the asset at scale. Strategy recently disclosed buying another 1,665 BTC between Sept. 21 and 27 for USD 143 million, at an average price of USD 85,681 per BTC. Its holdings reached 847,666 BTC, with an average purchase cost of USD 75,437. That shows Strategy is still deploying capital into BTC, but wallet data should not be read as every address movement representing a new purchase or ownership transfer.
I’ll watch future accumulation, the average purchase price and BTC flows across custody addresses. If holdings keep rising while BTC stays above Strategy’s average cost, its influence on institutional capital flows becomes more notable. But I’ll keep actual ownership separate from operational movements by the custodian.
How much more transparent could markets become if most of Strategy’s BTC remains traceable? If this logic makes sense, drop a follow for more market breakdowns.
Please do your own research carefully before making any transactions (DYOR). $BTC $ETH $BNB
Arkham Intelligence says it has tracked about 78% of the Bitcoin held by Strategy, worth USD 55.78 billion. Its profile covers roughly 1,600 addresses holding 478,199 BTC, plus USD 15.5 billion marked within Fidelity Custody.
My take: this on-chain visibility matters because it gives the market a clearer view of how a corporate BTC treasury accumulates the asset at scale. Strategy recently disclosed buying another 1,665 BTC between Sept. 21 and 27 for USD 143 million, at an average price of USD 85,681 per BTC. Its holdings reached 847,666 BTC, with an average purchase cost of USD 75,437. That shows Strategy is still deploying capital into BTC, but wallet data should not be read as every address movement representing a new purchase or ownership transfer.
I’ll watch future accumulation, the average purchase price and BTC flows across custody addresses. If holdings keep rising while BTC stays above Strategy’s average cost, its influence on institutional capital flows becomes more notable. But I’ll keep actual ownership separate from operational movements by the custodian.
How much more transparent could markets become if most of Strategy’s BTC remains traceable? If this logic makes sense, drop a follow for more market breakdowns.
Please do your own research carefully before making any transactions (DYOR). $BTC $ETH $BNB
