Is Bitcoin Still Decentralized? Concerns Rise Over Growing Concentration of Ownership

In the early days of Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency was hailed as a revolutionary tool for financial freedom — a decentralized, peer-to-peer system free from the control of central banks and powerful institutions. But over a decade later, mounting concerns are beginning to challenge that founding principle.

Analysts, economists, and blockchain observers are now raising red flags about the growing concentration of Bitcoin ownership. Once touted as a financial equalizer, Bitcoin appears to be increasingly centralized in the hands of a small group of powerful holders. With large portions of the total Bitcoin supply now controlled by a select few entities, critics argue that the cryptocurrency may no longer fully embody the decentralized ethos it was built upon.

A Shift Toward Centralization

At the heart of the debate is the undeniable fact that a small number of entities hold a significant portion of the world’s Bitcoin supply.

According to blockchain analytics, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, is estimated to hold around 1.1 million BTC, equivalent to approximately 5% of the total supply. While these coins remain untouched since their creation, the mere existence of such a vast holding presents a hypothetical risk. Should those coins ever be moved or liquidated, the market could experience unprecedented volatility.

Meanwhile, institutional investors have emerged as dominant players in the Bitcoin ecosystem. One of the most notable is Michael Saylor, the outspoken executive chairman of MicroStrategy, whose firm owns more than 214,000 BTC, amounting to roughly 1.2% of all circulating Bitcoin. Through aggressive acquisitions and public advocacy, Saylor has helped to reshape Bitcoin’s image from a grassroots movement into a strategic asset favored by corporate treasuries.

In addition, global asset manager BlackRock—through its Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF)—has accumulated an estimated 1.3% of total Bitcoin, placing one of the world’s most influential financial firms squarely within the core of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Other institutional investors, hedge funds, and high-net-worth individuals have also steadily increased their Bitcoin holdings.

These developments underscore an uncomfortable truth: rather than being distributed across millions of independent users, Bitcoin is increasingly dominated by a relatively small group of holders—many of whom reside in the United States and China.

What Does Centralization Mean for Bitcoin?

Decentralization has long been one of Bitcoin’s most celebrated features. By removing intermediaries and enabling users to transact without trust in centralized authorities, Bitcoin promised to return financial control to the people.

However, as wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, Bitcoin’s governance, market behavior, and network integrity may all be subject to manipulation. Experts warn that such centralization could replicate the very financial power dynamics that Bitcoin was created to resist.

“Ownership concentration introduces risks of collusion, market manipulation, and systemic shocks,” said Dr. Melissa Tran, a blockchain economist at Stanford University. “When a small group of entities control a majority of supply, they gain outsize influence over price movements, liquidity, and even protocol decisions.”

While Bitcoin’s code remains decentralized and open-source, the growing centralization of its ownership and mining infrastructure threatens to undermine the very democratization it once symbolized.

Mining Power and Geographic Clustering

The issue of decentralization doesn’t end with coin ownership. Mining — the process of validating transactions and securing the Bitcoin network — has also witnessed significant consolidation.

Bitcoin isn’t truly decentralized anymore. A small group controls a huge portion of it, Satoshi holds 5%, Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy have 1.2%, BlackRock owns 1.3%, and the rest is mostly in the hands of wealthy individuals in the U.S. and China. pic.twitter.com/9w3jWUQ0GS

— Basileus π (@basileuspi) May 19, 2025

Despite periodic migrations of mining operations due to regulatory crackdowns (most notably China’s 2021 ban), a substantial portion of global mining power remains concentrated in a few regions and operated by large-scale industrial miners. Mining pools — cooperative groups that pool computational power — now dominate Bitcoin's hashrate. The top five mining pools collectively control over 65% of the network’s processing power.

This means that although Bitcoin is designed to operate as a trustless and permissionless system, a coordinated effort by these mining entities could theoretically censor transactions, delay blocks, or even attempt a 51% attack, jeopardizing the network’s integrity.

The Role of Institutionalization

Bitcoin’s evolution from a fringe digital experiment to a mainstream financial asset has also contributed to its centralization. Over the past five years, the introduction of Bitcoin ETFs, custodial services, and institutional trading platforms has shifted the user base from tech-savvy enthusiasts to institutional players.

These developments, while increasing accessibility and liquidity, have led to the custodianship of vast amounts of Bitcoin by a handful of financial firms. Retail investors, often engaging through platforms like Coinbase or Robinhood, rarely hold their private keys — effectively relying on centralized services to manage their "decentralized" assets.

This paradox has not gone unnoticed. Bitcoin maximalists and critics alike now question whether the original vision of a user-controlled, decentralized monetary system is still intact.

Can Bitcoin Return to Its Decentralized Roots?

Despite concerns, proponents argue that Bitcoin remains fundamentally decentralized at the protocol level. Any user can run a node, verify transactions, and participate in the network. Open-source governance ensures that changes to Bitcoin’s code require broad consensus, making unilateral control difficult.

Still, as ownership and mining power continue to centralize, the community is grappling with difficult questions. Can Bitcoin’s decentralization be preserved in the face of increasing institutional control? Should steps be taken to redistribute holdings or promote smaller-scale mining?

Some proposed solutions include promoting the use of non-custodial wallets, encouraging peer-to-peer transactions, and developing new protocols that reward decentralized behavior. Others advocate for exploring Layer 2 technologies like the Lightning Network to promote microtransactions and broader participation.

The Bigger Picture

Bitcoin’s current state offers a lesson in unintended consequences. As it gained popularity, the open nature of the protocol allowed anyone — including institutions — to participate freely. That freedom has led to massive capital inflows, but also to a concentration of power.

This evolution is not unique to Bitcoin. Most major cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, face similar concerns regarding the centralization of staking power, token distribution, and governance rights.

Ultimately, whether Bitcoin remains a truly decentralized system may depend on the actions of its community in the coming years. Advocates, developers, and users will need to decide whether to passively accept increasing concentration — or take deliberate steps to preserve the network’s foundational ideals.

As Bitcoin approaches another milestone in adoption and public awareness, the question remains: Can a decentralized dream survive in a centralized world?

Writer @Erlin

Erlin is an experienced crypto writer who loves to explore the intersection of blockchain technology and financial markets. She regularly provides insights into the latest trends and innovations in the digital currency space.

 

 Check out other news and articles on Google News

Disclaimer:

The articles published on hokanews are intended to provide up-to-date information on various topics, including cryptocurrency and technology news. The content on our site is not intended as an invitation to buy, sell, or invest in any assets. We encourage readers to conduct their own research and evaluation before making any investment or financial decisions.

hokanews is not responsible for any losses or damages that may arise from the use of information provided on this site. Investment decisions should be based on thorough research and advice from qualified financial advisors. Information on HokaNews may change without notice, and we do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the content published.