Why OG Bitcoin Whales are suddenly selling their coins
They’re not “bearish on BTC” so much as bearish on sovereign MoE BTC in the medium run.
I’ve already covered why some Bitcoin OG Whales have started to move their self-custody coins into ETFs (mostly BlackRock’s IBIT).
In this article, I’ll speculate on why some OG Bitcoin whales have sold in 2025.
Long-term holders (LTHs) net selling accelerated into Oct–Nov 2025. Glassnode’s LTH Net Position Change fell to about –104k BTC/month in late October — the heaviest monthly distribution since mid-year.
Cumulative LTH spending in 2025 reached multi-million BTC scale. Glassnode estimates roughly 2.4M BTC spent by LTHs over the period they analyze in 2025 (offset by coins aging into LTH), helping explain persistent sell-side pressure.
Despite selling waves, “ancient” supply (5+ years dormant) remained large —> 17% of total supply as of June 8, 2025 — showing many early holders still haven’t moved (some might’ve lost their keys).
LTH Net Position Change tracks the 30-day change in coins held by long-term holders (155+ days). Positive = LTHs are net accumulating; negative = net distributing.
Notable “Satoshi-era”/OG moves
80,000 BTC (Satoshi-era) shifted in mid-2025 — the largest such awakening on record — widely covered as a potential sale and a key psychological event.
Multiple 14-year-dormant wallets sent coins in Oct–Nov (e.g., 150 BTC; other 10+ year coins totaling ~3.9k BTC in a day), adding to the “OGs are active” narrative.
How to read it
Yes — OG/Long-Term-Holder supply hit the market in 2025 (both steady LTH distribution and headline “ancient” spends).
No — this wasn’t an all-out exodus. A big, sticky base of old coins remained unmoved (ancient share still high), and some months saw LTH net buying during draw-downs earlier in the year.
What OGs may be seeing (and why it degrades the “sovereign MoE” odds)
A) Protocol → Policy drift (the governance capture risk)
Mempool-as-policy client. When relay/miner policy becomes the de-facto throttle (OP_RETURN, standardness, default Replace-By-Fee, inscription vectors), consensus isn’t the only choke-point anymore. OG read: policy knobs can steer usage without a hard fork.
Illicit-content vector = regulatory kill switch. Large data-carriers + inscriptions create a standing pretext for “public safety” filtering, corporate node deplatforming, and cloud / ISP refusal to host full nodes. OG read: the legal fuse is already laid.
Two-tier rule-making by defaults. If Core’s defaults become infra-wide norms (because pools/exchanges run them), that’s governance by software default, not by rough consensus. OG read: sovereignty is de facto shrinking.
B) Perimeter tightening is mostly solved (without new laws)
App-store vetoes. iOS/Android can quietly degrade non-KYC wallet distribution (risk flags, age-gate + IDKYC, delistings). OG read: retail self-custody funnel narrows.
Bank/PB rails. Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) pressure, travel-rule entrenchment, and fiat off-ramp friction mean exit is permissions-gated even if on-chain is permissionless.
Cloud concentration. A large share of archival/full nodes sit on a handful of clouds. Terms-of-service switches can impose provenance/filters overnight.
C) “White vs black coin” balkanization
Taint analytics got good. Heuristics + exchange data + subpoenas mean old, mixed UTXOs become expensive to launder into white venues. OG read: future liquidity discount on legacy coins, rising compliance drag.
Retroactive risk. If provenance rules harden, yesterday’s clean could be tomorrow’s restricted; amnesty windows might not repeat. OGs front-run that tail.
D) Paperization changing the payoff profile
ETF/derivative gravity. The marginal buyer prefers wrappers → lower realized vol, damped upside tails, richer carry in options/basis than in raw coins. If your edge was convexity, the game moved.
Rehypothecation risk. Even if Proof-of-Reserves exists, large wrappers + prime flows can organically create shadow paper supply (rolling basis/borrow), soft-capping squeezes. OGs sell spot into wrapper demand, farm carry later.
E) Mining/pool centralization & policy compliance
Pool-level censorship is tractable. DATUM/Stratum V2 not universal; a small set of pools already signal OFAC compliance. OG read: if policy wants it, template filtering is one insurance mandate away.
Energy policy lever. Grid “security” + ESG can throttle miners regionally, raising coordination power of a few jurisdictions. Sovereign hash mobility is less than it looks.
F) L2/MoE thesis losing share to stablecoins/CeFi rails
Stablecoins ate Medium-of-Exchange. For day-to-day commerce and remittance, KYC stablecoins on cheap L2s are winning UX and compliance. OG read: BTC’s Medium-of-Exchange beachhead shrinks, Store-of-Value-supervised grows.
Lightning’s KYC gravitational pull. Hubs/exchanges become dominant gateways; hub-level compliance means Medium-of-Exchange routes are surveilled or throttled.
G) Attack-surface that invites “solutions”
Content bait. A single high-profile CSAM/malware embed → instant political mandate for relay/pool filters, plus civil liability attempts for node runners/ISPs.
“Node = money transmitter” trope poised to reappear with better lawyering. You don’t have to win in court; you just need frightened intermediaries to self-censor.
H) Timing: unique, deep-liquidity exit window
OTC + ETF primary windows currently allow nine-figure clips with minimal slippage. OG read: use the clarity rally to rotate, before the window narrows.
I) Personal risk & estate math (non-ideological but decisive)
Security / extortion / inheritance. Fame grew; threat model changed. Boards, trustees, and insurers prefer brokerage-native instruments to seed phrases. That alone pushes trims.
J) Macro ROT (return on time) re-ranking
Policy-aligned private deals (AI/defense/energy/identity) now offer higher Sharpe with less headline risk. Opportunity cost argues for rotating some stack. A higher Sharpe ratio indicates that an investment is providing better returns relative to the amount of risk taken.
K) Tax & accounting realities
Step-up/harvest engineering. Realize gains strategically (jurisdiction moves, loss offsets), then rebuy wrappers for basis reset and form-friendly holdings.
Corporate treasuries offload optics. If you’re public or semi-public, a giant coin stack invites governance fire. Rotate to ETF/derivative exposure that audit committees can stomach.
“Cycle year” isn’t the main driver — but it’s a coordinate
Yes, some OGs use the 3-years-up/1-year-down schema for exit timing, but the structural reasons above are the motive: the payout shape changed (less upside convexity, more compliance drag, perimeter control maturing).
What this implies (tactically, not moralizing)
They’re not “bearish on BTC” so much as bearish on sovereign Medium-of-Exchange BTC in the medium run.
Base case: BTC migrates toward supervised SoV, with managed cyclicality and paper-dominant flow; self-custody remains a small, high-convexity tail sleeve.
OG playbook: sell into “clarity”, keep a sovereign slice, re-add on policy panics.
If you want a one-liner: they’re reading governance-by-defaults, perimeter enforcement via private choke-points, and the stablecoin capture of Medium-of-Exchange — and concluding the sovereign upside tail got thinner.
That makes selling into clarity, whitening stacks, outsourcing security, and harvesting wrapper yield the rational move — while keeping a lean, clean self-custody tail hedge for the scenarios that still matter.
More context: