MicroStrategy's holdings have reached 815k BTC: How much closer is it to Satoshi Nakamoto?

In the third week of April 2026, a paradigm-shifting change occurred in the institutional holdings landscape of the Bitcoin market. MicroStrategy disclosed in an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that between April 14 and April 20, it purchased 34,164 BTC, totaling approximately $2.54 billion, at an average purchase price of $74,395. This increase brought its total Bitcoin holdings to 815,061 BTC, surpassing the approximately 806,178 BTC held by the iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) under BlackRock, reestablishing itself as the largest single Bitcoin holder globally.

Following this milestone, Alex Thorn, Head of Research at Galaxy Digital, posted a more impactful analysis on social media: at the current accumulation rate, MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin holdings could surpass Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated holdings as early as November 2026. Thorn’s publicly shared model chart shows that MicroStrategy’s holdings growth curve is clearly pointing toward the estimated target of around 1,096,000 BTC, attributed to Satoshi.

This projection has attracted widespread market attention, not only because it involves a “possible future event,” but also because it touches on a previously unconsidered question in the Bitcoin market—a latecomer approaching the creator’s defined historical scale.

From Satoshi’s Unmoved Holdings to MicroStrategy’s Continuous Accumulation

Satoshi Nakamoto’s Holdings: An Unconfirmed but Symbolically Significant Number

Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin holdings remain an academic inference based on on-chain analysis. The anonymous creator of Bitcoin has never publicly disclosed how many BTC they hold; all figures are derived from third-party researcher address clustering analyses. The most widely cited estimate ranges from approximately 1,096,000 to 1,100,000 BTC, primarily based on Sergio Demián Lerner’s “Patoshi Pattern” analysis—identifying specific mining patterns in early blocks to infer the amount of Bitcoin mined by the same entity.

These BTC are distributed across thousands of P2PK addresses and have never been moved since 2010. Based on a Bitcoin price of about $77,728.70 as of April 24, 2026, the estimated market value of Satoshi’s holdings is roughly $84.8 billion. However, this figure has a dual nature: it is both the largest known individual Bitcoin reserve in history and an “existence” that has never entered circulation.

MicroStrategy’s Accumulation Timeline: From August 2020 to Approaching a Historic Scale

MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin strategy began in August 2020, when its decision was seen as an unconventional move. Six years later, the company has invested about $61.56 billion in Bitcoin, with an average acquisition cost of approximately $75,527 per BTC.

In just the first three weeks of 2026, MicroStrategy achieved a 6.2% return on Bitcoin, equivalent to about 47,079 BTC, valued at roughly $3.6 billion at current prices. Since 2026, the company’s cumulative Bitcoin return has reached 9.5%.

According to Galaxy’s model logic chain: the current holdings of 815,061 BTC versus Satoshi’s estimated 1,096,000 BTC leave a gap of about 280,939 BTC. If the company maintains its recent weekly purchase pace of around $200 million, filling this gap would take approximately 9 to 14 months, with the earliest convergence point in November 2026.

The “Mathematical Condition” for Surpassing Satoshi

Core Variables: Speed, Price, and Financing Capacity

Whether MicroStrategy can surpass Satoshi within Galaxy’s projected timeframe depends on the dynamic balance of three core variables.

Variable One: Accumulation Speed. In April 2026, MicroStrategy’s weekly purchase reached 34,164 BTC, roughly 4,880 BTC per day. If this pace continues, the company could add about 140k to 150k BTC per month, filling the current gap in about two months. However, this speed is not linear historically: at the end of March 2026, the company experienced a week with no purchases. Galaxy’s projection implicitly assumes that the financing window remains open and that the company will not significantly slow its buying pace due to market conditions.

Variable Two: BTC Price Level. At the current price of about $77,728.70, MicroStrategy would need to invest roughly $21.8 billion to acquire the remaining approximately 280,939 BTC if prices stay constant. If prices rise significantly, the required capital increases proportionally; if prices fall, costs decrease, but unrealized losses on holdings will expand. In Q1 2026, MicroStrategy reported about $14.46 billion in unrealized losses on digital assets, with its cost basis highly sensitive to price fluctuations.

Variable Three: The “Certainty” of Satoshi’s Holdings. Satoshi’s 1,096,000 BTC is an estimate rather than an exact figure, and these BTC have never moved, making on-chain attribution impossible to verify. If the actual holdings are lower than this estimate, the surpassing point could arrive earlier. Similarly, if new on-chain analysis methods revise this estimate, the benchmark for surpassing will shift accordingly.

Structural Shift in Institutional Holdings

The top three holders together control about 2,717,761 BTC, roughly 12.94% of the total 21 million supply. Satoshi’s holdings are effectively “frozen” reserves, while MicroStrategy and IBIT holdings are actively tradable assets. This means that in terms of circulating supply, MicroStrategy already controls a larger proportion.

In Q1 2026, IBIT experienced net inflows on 48 of 62 trading days, with total inflows of about $8.4 billion, and after accelerating in mid-April, its holdings surpassed 800k BTC. MicroStrategy’s weekly purchases sometimes match the net inflow volume of several weeks of ETF activity, indicating its marginal market impact is increasing significantly.

“Bullish Signal” vs. “Ponzi Allegation”: A Positive Clash

Saylor’s “Winter Is Over” Declaration

After surpassing IBIT’s holdings, MicroStrategy’s Executive Chairman Michael Saylor posted a brief statement on social media: “Winter’s Over,” accompanied by AI-generated imagery symbolizing revival, seen as a direct market sentiment signal.

In Q1 2026, Bitcoin’s price experienced a sharp correction from about $90k at the start of the year to around $68k, followed by a rebound to current levels. Saylor’s statement comes against this backdrop. Some market participants acknowledge his optimism, while others remain cautious—pointing out that Bitcoin’s current price is still below early-year levels, and the 200-day moving average has yet to be convincingly broken.

Schiff’s Ponzi Allegation and Its Logical Basis

Gold advocate Peter Schiff launched a provocative critique of MicroStrategy’s financing model, directly labeling STRC preferred stock as a “Ponzi scheme,” with a logically compelling statement:

“The main difference between STRC and a typical Ponzi scheme is that the latter’s organizers won’t tell you it’s a Ponzi scheme, nor will they tell you your payments will stop when new buyers dry up.”

Schiff’s core argument is that: the 11.5% annual dividend on STRC is not derived from MicroStrategy’s operating income but relies on continuously issuing new shares to raise funds—that is, “new investors’ money paying old investors’ returns.” If the expectation of rising Bitcoin prices reverses or new investor attraction diminishes, this structure could face systemic risk.

Saylor’s Counter: 2.05% Annual Appreciation Sufficient to Cover

In response to the Ponzi claim, Saylor provided a mathematically grounded reply: Bitcoin only needs to appreciate by 2.05% annually to indefinitely cover all preferred dividends. This argument is mathematically valid—if Bitcoin maintains an average annual appreciation above 2% over a sufficiently long horizon, the value growth of MicroStrategy’s BTC reserves will always outpace dividend payments.

However, this logic is also fragile: it depends on long-term mean reversion, while preferred dividends are paid monthly (or semi-monthly), creating a short-term rigid obligation. The mismatch between short-term price volatility and long-term appreciation is the real risk in this structure.

Community Responses to Schiff’s Argument

Some members of the crypto community argue that MicroStrategy’s financing approach is no different from traditional equity issuance in capital markets, and equating capital raising mechanisms with Ponzi schemes reflects a conceptual misunderstanding. Others note that STRC’s structure is itself a transparent risk disclosure tool—companies have explicitly disclosed related risks in SEC filings, and investor participation is based on open information.

Industry Impact Analysis: The Deeper Meaning of a Latecomer Approaching the Origin

Re-examining Bitcoin Supply Concentration

Just three entities control about 12.94% of the total Bitcoin supply, a figure noteworthy across any asset class. More importantly, the distribution is uneven: Satoshi’s holdings are effectively “frozen,” while MicroStrategy and IBIT holdings are actively changing. If MicroStrategy continues accumulating at the current pace, its share could surpass 5% within a year, significantly impacting market depth and decision-making.

The “Bitcoin-anchored” Effect of Corporate Balance Sheets

MicroStrategy’s actions are demonstrating a new corporate financial paradigm: treating Bitcoin as a core asset on the balance sheet. Although over 200 publicly listed companies hold Bitcoin, their holdings are highly concentrated in MicroStrategy alone. In Q1 2026, MicroStrategy accounted for about 94% of corporate Bitcoin purchases. If more companies follow this model, the supply side of BTC will tighten further, but the scale of imitators currently lags far behind MicroStrategy.

Redefining the Symbolic Significance of Satoshi’s Holdings

Satoshi’s 1,096,000 BTC has long been regarded as a “no-man’s land” in the Bitcoin market—a reference point that seems insurmountable. When a commercial entity actually surpasses this number, it triggers not only data-driven attention but also psychological reconfiguration: the original symbolic marker of Bitcoin will be overshadowed by a profit-driven company. For communities committed to decentralization, this will evoke complex emotional reactions.

Conclusion

Galaxy Research’s timeline is not a certainty but a benchmark hypothesis based on current data trends. The gap between MicroStrategy’s 815,061 BTC and Satoshi’s approximately 1,096,000 BTC can be mathematically narrowed or even eliminated, but what it represents goes far beyond a mere numerical surpassing.

A company that has spent six years tying its balance sheet to Bitcoin’s depth is approaching an anonymous creator who has never moved a single coin. The distance between them is not only about roughly 280,939 BTC but also about fundamentally different behavioral logics—one is an active, expanding strategy, the other a static historical coordinate. Whether or not this crossing occurs as projected, it will become a significant structural event in Bitcoin’s history worth recording.