Overview

In mid to late July, several early Bitcoin wallets that had been dormant for years suddenly became active on-chain, drawing the market's attention back to an old question: could those ancient coins, which had extremely low acquisition costs and showed several times the paper profits, become actual selling pressure at this moment? According to data tracked by Arkham and quoted by KuCoin, on July 13, a wallet that had not moved since October 2018 (labeled "356my") transferred 2,931 Bitcoins to a new address, valued at approximately 188 million dollars based on a price of about 64,000 dollars at that time, resulting in a near tenfold profit compared to an acquisition cost of about 6,500 dollars. A few days later, on July 16, another address dormant for over eight years transferred 5,908 Bitcoins, valued at about 383 million dollars, according to Lookonchain and Arkham's data. On July 20, a dormant address for five years moved 700 Bitcoins, with an acquisition cost of approximately 22.34 million dollars, now worth about 45.3 million dollars, as reported by COINOTAG citing on-chain records. These transfers occurred at a sensitive time when Bitcoin lingered around 64,000 dollars, having retreated nearly 50% from the high of about 126,000 dollars expected in October 2025, leading to direct market questions: is this a precursor to profit-taking or merely a portfolio reallocation?

Key Points

On July 13, a wallet dormant since October 2018 transferred 2,931 Bitcoins valued at approximately 188 million dollars, with an acquisition price of about 6,500 dollars, resulting in nearly tenfold profits, and according to Arkham, the funds were directed to a new address rather than an exchange.

On July 16, an address dormant for over eight years and built in 2017 transferred 5,908 Bitcoins valued at approximately 383 million dollars, also directed toward an unmarked new address, with a profit of about 283 million dollars.

On July 20, a wallet dormant for five years transferred 700 Bitcoins, costing about 22.34 million dollars, now worth about 45.3 million dollars.

The commonality of the three transfers is that none of the funds directly entered known exchanges, indicating there is no evidence of an immediate selling intention yet.

According to Galaxy Research, in 2026, the scale of awakening old coins has dropped to less than half that of 2025, and the "Great Redistribution" process is nearing its end.

According to K33, long-term holders control about 79% of circulating supply, marking a historical high, while the volume of reactivated ancient coins is at its lowest since 2012.

The Puzzle of the Three Transfers

Tenfold Profit from a Seven-Year Dormant Wallet

The timeline starts on July 13 (some sources note July 12). According to The Block and related chain analysis, a wallet inactive since October 23, 2018, moved 2,931 Bitcoins to a new wallet in the afternoon Eastern Time. According to Crypto Economy quoting Arkham's data, funds were transferred from the old address starting with "356my" to a new bech32 address starting with "bc1qn." The last time this wallet was active, the Bitcoin price was about 6,500 dollars, resulting in nearly tenfold profits at current prices.

The key detail lies in the destination. According to CryptoNexa's verification, there was no evidence at the time of reporting that these 2,931 Bitcoins reached any centralized exchanges, with possible fund destinations pointing to three scenarios: cold wallet accumulation, distribution to multiple addresses, or subsequent deposit into exchanges. Before these coins enter exchanges, any judgments about selling are solely speculative.

Three Hundred Million Dollar Shift from an Eight-Year Whale

A larger transaction occurred on July 16. According to Live Bitcoin News quoting Lookonchain and Arkham's data, an address inactive since December 2017 (labeled "138EM…ReyiT") transferred 5,908 Bitcoins valued at about 383 million dollars. The acquisition price when this address was built was around 16,800 dollars, then worth nearly 100 million dollars, with a profit of about 283 million dollars.

According to Yahoo Finance's analysis, Arkham data shows that this fund was transferred to a newly created unmarked address rather than a known exchange, leading some in the market to believe the holder was more likely upgrading the wallet than preparing to sell. Notably, this transfer moved coins from an old format address starting with "1" to a new format address starting with "bc1q," which supports lower fees and modern wallet standards, supporting the interpretation of "reshuffling rather than selling."

Shifting from a Five-Year Dormant Address

The third transaction was smaller but similarly typical. According to COINOTAG quoting on-chain records, on July 20, a dormant address for five years transferred 700 Bitcoins, with an acquisition cost of approximately 22.34 million dollars, now worth about 45.3 million dollars, with about a onefold profit. The funds were split into two new addresses, with approximately 697.68 coins concentrated in one bc1q address. This mode of "accumulation and then splitting to new addresses" aligns with the reshuffling characteristics of the previous two transactions.

Why the Market is Sensitive at This Moment

Price and Sentiment in a Fragile Position

The same on-chain behavior can have vastly different interpretations in bull and bear markets. According to Bitcoin Foundation's report, Bitcoin was trading around 64,000 dollars in mid-July, having retreated nearly 50% from the high of about 126,000 dollars expected in October 2025. When market sentiment is weak and liquidity is low, any movement of ancient coins can be more easily interpreted as a precursor to selling pressure.

According to Brave New Coin quoting Santiment's data, on-chain analyst Ali Martinez issued a high volatility alert in mid-July, noting an uptick in Bitcoin's "coin age consumption" activity, meaning old coins started moving. An increase in such indicators does not equate to selling but will raise market expectations for volatility.

Exchanges are the True Threshold for Judging Selling Pressure

Understanding these events relies on distinguishing between "transfer" and "sale." Crypto assets must first be transferred to exchanges to be sold on the open market. According to Yahoo Finance's report, as long as the funds flow to newly created unmarked addresses instead of exchanges, it indicates there is no plan for immediate sales.

This also distinguishes the three transfers this time from true selling pressure events. According to Coinidol's organization, neither the 188 million dollar nor the 383 million dollar transfers resulted in a direct deposit into exchanges, allowing Bitcoin to stabilize around 64,000 dollars, with a brief rebound to 66,000 dollars on July 21. In other words, the selling pressure that the market fears has yet to materialize on-chain.

View in the Bigger Supply Picture

"Great Redistribution" Process is Cooling

Isolated, several transfers of over a hundred million dollars may seem shocking, but in the context of the supply structure in 2026, they resemble the aftermath of a concluding process. According to Crypto Briefing quoting Galaxy Digital's research director Alex Thorn's assessment, the largest scale of ancient coin redistribution since the 2017 cycle has nearly completed, and the activation volume of ancient coins in 2026 is expected to be less than half of that in 2025.

The peak of this "Great Redistribution" has actually passed. According to the same report, in July 2025, Galaxy executed a transfer of around 80,000 Bitcoins, valued at about 9 billion dollars at that time, on behalf of early investors, one of the largest single Bitcoin transactions in history. In contrast, the scale of the recent transfers is much smaller.

Long-term Holders are Still Accumulating

On the supply side, another factor is the behavior of long-term holders. According to KuCoin quoting K33 research director Vetle Lunde's data, as of June 6, only 218,421 Bitcoins that have been held for more than two years have been reactivated in 2026, far lower than 1.18 million during the same period in 2024, marking the lowest level since 2012. Meanwhile, long-term holders' holdings account for about 79% of circulating supply, reaching a historical high.

This background is important. It implies that even if some ancient wallets wake up, the overall intensity of old coin movement is decreasing rather than increasing. According to CryptoSlate analyzing Galaxy Research charts, the movement of coins held for over a year exceeded 4 million in 2024 but has dropped below 2 million this year.

What it Means for Investors

For investors focusing on both spot and derivatives, the appropriate way to process such events is to treat them as signals to track rather than trading directives. Transfers on-chain do not change the total supply; they only change the custody location of the coins. The real caution should be toward subsequent actions involving funds flowing to exchanges.

A practical framework is to observe in tiers: first, confirm whether the coins enter exchanges; next, see if the inflow of old coins into exchanges rises synchronously; finally, integrate ETF fund flows and derivatives positions to gauge overall supply and demand. According to CryptoDaily's analysis, when spot demand is stable but inflows of old coins into exchanges increase, the market is more likely to show a consolidation rather than a unilateral trend, allowing investors to adjust their position timing and avoid heavy concentration. Those wishing to track such on-chain signals and relevant asset pricing can observe changes in funding rates and positions before and after large transfers on platforms like MEXC that cover both spot and derivatives data.

Risks and Subsequent Points for Observation

Shuffling Might Just Be the First Step to Selling

It is essential to remain vigilant that the distance between moving to a new address and subsequently depositing into exchanges could be just a few days away. There have been historical cases of dormant wallets first accumulating and then depositing in batches to exchanges. If these new addresses show transfers to known exchanges in the coming weeks, the narrative of selling pressure will shift from speculation to reality.

A Legal Variable

According to Yahoo Finance quoting Galaxy Research's report, a lawsuit referred to as Noah Doe emerged in May 2026, with an anonymous plaintiff seeking ownership of about 3.8 million dormant Bitcoins, targeting over 39,000 inactive addresses, claiming these coins have been "de facto abandoned." Legal disputes surrounding the ownership of ancient wallets might prompt some holders to move funds in advance to demonstrate control, thus increasing the frequency of ancient coin movements. This variable does not directly relate to market selling pressure but may interfere with the interpretation of on-chain data.

Signals to Watch

In the coming weeks, four signals are worth tracking: whether these new addresses show transfers to exchanges, whether the inflow indicators of old coins into exchanges rise, whether Bitcoin can regain around 69,000 dollars to bring recent buyers back above the cost line, and the direction of capital flow into spot ETFs. According to CryptoSlate's analysis, 69,000 dollars is a critical position to determine whether the new batch of holders will capitulate due to floating losses.

MEXC Crypto Pulse Research Team's Exclusive Viewpoint

The truly important aspect of this round of ancient wallet awakenings is not just several transfers of over a hundred million dollars but that they occur during a period when the "Great Redistribution" is concluding rather than starting. The market's instinctive response is to equate the movement of old coins with selling pressure, but the supply data for 2026 tells a contrary story: the activation volume of ancient coins has dropped to its lowest levels since 2012, and long-term holders have reached a historical high in share. Isolated transfers may very well represent specific instances within this cooling process rather than the start of a new round of distribution.

The market may have misinterpreted two aspects. First, equating "transfers to new addresses" with "upcoming sales." None of the three transfers went directly into exchanges, and the largest transfer clearly moved from an old format address to a new format address that supports lower fees, which aligns more with wallet upgrades or custody reallocations than with cash-outs. Second, misinterpreting the rise in on-chain "coin age consumption" as a trend reversal signal. Given that nearly 80% of circulating supply is locked by long-term holders, the marginal impact of individual old coins moving on overall liquidity is far less than in Bitcoin's early days.

If there's only one thing to monitor, we recommend keeping an eye on net inflows of old coins to exchanges rather than focusing solely on wallet transfer news. Transfers only changed the location of coins; deposits to exchanges are the necessary premise for selling pressure. Funds remaining motionless at a new address differ entirely in their implications for the market compared to appearing in exchange hot wallets.

The insight for the crypto market is that on-chain transparency is a double-edged sword. It exposes every move by whales, but it also makes the market prone to overreact to "transfers," misinterpreting custodial actions as trading actions. As institutional custody, ETFs, and custody reallocations become the norm, movements of ancient wallets will increasingly reflect operational demands rather than directional bets. The truly mature interpretation is to treat on-chain data as clues that require cross-validation rather than signals that can be directly traded. In a cycle dominated by long-term holders, with distribution processes nearing completion, narratives about supply scarcity may be more important than the noise from isolated selling pressure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will transfers of dormant wallets inevitably crash the market?

Not necessarily. Crypto assets must be transferred to exchanges before they can be sold on the open market. The three transfers in July have directed funds to newly created unmarked addresses rather than known exchanges, indicating there is currently no evidence of an intention to sell immediately. Only when these coins show subsequent transfers to exchanges will selling pressure shift from speculation to reality. Before that, the transfers are more likely to be portfolio reallocations, wallet upgrades, or custody adjustments.

Why did these wallets choose to move in July?

Public data cannot confirm the specific motivations of the holders. Common interpretations include early miners or crypto funds rebalancing across custodians, upgrading to new format addresses that support lower fees, managing risk ahead of macro events, or responding to legal disputes regarding ownership of ancient wallets. As these addresses are anonymous, any single motivation is speculative and should not be written as definitive conclusions.

Are the scales of this transfer considered large historically?

Not particularly large. The largest transfer this time was 5,908 Bitcoins, worth about 383 million dollars. In comparison, according to Galaxy Digital, in July 2025, there was a transfer of around 80,000 Bitcoins valued at about 9 billion dollars, one of the largest single transactions in history. According to Galaxy Research, the activation volume of ancient coins in 2026 is expected to be less than half of that in 2025, indicating the peak of large-scale distribution has already passed.

What is the "Great Redistribution"?

This refers to the process from 2024 to 2025 when a large number of early Bitcoin holders transferred long-held coins to new buyers after the price broke 100,000 dollars. According to CryptoQuant and Galaxy Research, this process is nearing its conclusion, with the intensity of old coin movements significantly declining in 2026. Institutional "new whales" have absorbed most of the released supply through ETFs and over-the-counter trading.

How to determine if a whale transfer will bring selling pressure?

The key is where the funds flow to exchanges. You can observe in three steps: first, confirm whether the destination is a new address or an exchange; second, examine whether the overall inflow indicators of old coins into exchanges are rising synchronously; and finally, combine ETF fund flows and derivatives positions to judge supply and demand. If the coins remain in non-exchange addresses, their immediate impact on the market is limited.

What does this mean for Bitcoin's price?

The short-term impact depends on whether these coins enter exchanges. So far, the three transfers have not resulted in direct exchange deposits, allowing Bitcoin to stabilize around 64,000 dollars. In the medium term, the declining activation volume of ancient coins and the historical high in long-term holders' positions point to a tightening of supply—moving in the opposite direction of the short-term noise from single transfers. Investors need to distinguish between these two time dimensions.

What should be focused on next?

Four signals: whether these new addresses show transfers to exchanges, whether the net inflow of old coins to exchanges rises, whether Bitcoin can regain around 69,000 dollars, and the direction of funding flows into spot ETFs. Any shift in these areas will change the current judgment of "transfers have occurred but selling pressure has not materialized."

Disclaimer

The content of this article is for general informational reference only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, tax advice, or any form of trading recommendation. Prices of crypto assets, stocks, and related financial products may exhibit significant fluctuations, and investors may lose all principal. The on-chain data, address labels, and cost estimates mentioned in the article are sourced from third-party tracking platforms and public media, such as Arkham and Lookonchain, and may be subject to delays, mislabeling, or discrepancies, and readers should verify independently. The identity of the owners of on-chain addresses and the reasons for transfers are often unconfirmable, and related interpretations are speculative. Any investment decision should be based on individual independent research, financial condition, and risk tolerance, and a licensed professional should be consulted when necessary. The MEXC Crypto Pulse team is not responsible for any direct or indirect losses incurred by individuals as a result of using or relying on the information in this article.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。