Is the drop in Bitcoin addresses enough to speak of capitulation?

The drop in the number of portfolios containing funds raises questions about the behavior of individual investors. In less than a month, Santiment noted nearly 109,000 fewer non-empty addresses. Some analysts are talking about a possible capitulation of bitcoin, but the numbers do not all tell the same story. Between measurement differences, platform uses and the arrival of Telegram wallets, this data requires careful reading before any conclusions on the current market today.

A drop in Bitcoin addresses that attracts attention

Santiment analysts have observed a decline in the number of non-empty BTC wallets since mid-October. It reached 59.99 million on October 16, before losing nearly 109,000 units by November 10. This drop represents less than 0.2%. The decline therefore remains limited at this stage. Santiment speaks of a disengagement of individuals, without concluding a reduction in the usefulness of the network.

This movement may reflect the reactions of individual investors. When prices fall, some holders consolidate their positions or empty their portfolios. Fear can also push individuals to reduce their exposure. A drop in addresses, however, does not prove that all of these users are selling or leaving the market. Statistics cannot track every individual decision.

Santiment even puts forward a potentially positive reading of this development. According to its analysts, the capitulation of individuals has often preceded market recoveries. The signal would become more encouraging if the number of portfolios continued to decrease while prices stopped falling. This combination could indicate that fear-driven sales are losing steam. Price behavior therefore remains a determining factor.

Bitcoin data diverges depending on the platforms

Santiment isn’t the only provider tracking addresses with a balance. Coinglass also measures this indicator, but its results differ significantly. The platform has statement 57.3 million non-empty wallets on October 17. This total is 2.7 million less than that of Santiment. The two services therefore start from different bases. Their methods may explain part of this discrepancy.

The recent development observed by Coinglass also contrasts with that of Santiment. As of November 8, the number of addresses had decreased by only 0.04%. Over thirty days, it even showed an increase of 0.1%. These variations remain small, but modify the reading. The choice of source therefore modifies the interpretation of the indicator.

Many investors purchase their assets on centralized platforms and hold them directly on these services. Others gain market exposure through exchange-traded funds. In both cases, they do not need a personal wallet on the blockchain. The number of non-empty addresses therefore does not represent all bitcoin holders.

Telegram multiplies wallets, but few are supplied

Telegram’s announcements also illustrate the gap between wallet creation and actual adoption. On November 9, Pavel Durov noted that more than 700,000 Money wallets had been created in 48 hours. The total then exceeded 930,000 creations over this same period. Telegram then had nearly 2.85 million wallets. This increase does not mean that every account contains assets.

According to GRAM Explorer, only about 178,000 wallets had a balance. This represents almost 6% of the accounts identified. These wallets together held 1.73 million GRAM, formerly called Toncoin. Their value reached $1.9 million. Each funded wallet contained an average of 9.7 GRAM, or $11.

Activity on the channel nevertheless increased during this period. On November 9, Telegram wallets completed over 675,000 transactions. This volume exceeded that of the previous day by 59%. However, GRAM Explorer does not offer any history of funded wallets. This data therefore does not measure the progress of funded accounts or their use of bitcoin. The distinction between technical access and financial activity remains essential.

Created addresses do not match new users

TON documentation explains how the service works. Telegram displays the wallet menu when the app enables this option for an account. A user can receive GRAMs without opening their wallet. The service also supports Telegram collectibles, such as gifts and usernames. His contract also receives other tokens from TON.

A created wallet is not necessarily actively used. An account may remain empty, while a user may receive assets before even opening the interface. The figures from Durov and GRAM Explorer primarily measure deployment and initial provisioning. They don’t reveal how many people actually adopt this solution.

The same caution is required for Bitcoin address statistics. More than 200,000 new addresses appear every day according to Look Into Bitcoin datawithout representing as many new investors. The network usually generates a new address for each transaction. One person can control several. This practice protects privacy and complicates the counting of bitcoin users.

Market performance puts on-chain signals into perspective

Since the start of the year, the number of non-empty BTC wallets has increased by almost 4%. This increase contrasts with the decline noted by Santiment since mid-October. A variation over a few weeks is not enough to establish a trend. A longer period would make it possible to better situate this movement. The data must also be placed in the context of bitcoin prices and other measures of network activity.

Telegram still has significant room for improvement. Telegram has over 1 billion monthly users, but less than 0.29% have a Money wallet. The service was offered to a restricted group at the end of August 2026, then opened more widely on October 9. Ultimately, around 60 million users could theoretically have a funded wallet.

This expansion, however, did not lead to a recovery in GRAM. BTC lost 11% in one month and 30% in one year. Over the same periods, the GRAM fell by 25% and 49% respectively. Since widening access, the token has fallen more than BTC. Its 5% rebound on November 10 does not erase the losses.

The drop in addresses is therefore not enough to confirm a general capitulation of bitcoin. Differences between platforms, purchases via intermediaries and new addresses limit this indicator. Its evolution must be compared to prices and other activity data. A persistent decline in portfolios with stable prices could signal sales exhaustion. However, a further fall in prices would not confirm a lasting bottom.