This works out roughly what each of the three biggest holder brackets paid on average and plots those figures alongside the market on a shared scale. Nothing else here can settle whether the very largest owners got in cheaper or dearer than the merely substantial ones.

It also reveals how far each bracket currently is from getting its money back, which converts a theoretical question about who owns what into a practical one about who is uncomfortable.

What it actually measures

Each cohort’s entry is rebuilt from its own net flows priced on the day they happened. Accumulating into weakness produces a low entry; buying into strength produces a high one, and the gap between cohorts says which of them was doing which.

Only the biggest brackets appear. The smaller ones are swamped by negligible balances and by accounts wandering back and forth over a threshold, so anything reconstructed for them would describe accounting rather than anybody’s intentions.

It is an estimate, and the chart is explicit about that

No entry price by holder size is recorded anywhere on chain. No such ledger could exist, since a bracket is not a person and who belongs to it changes daily as balances wander over the thresholds.

So every line here is reconstructed rather than read off. A view that presented the same figures without saying so would look identical and be considerably less trustworthy, and the honest version is the one that lets you weigh the number against how it was built.

What it does not tell you

Cohort membership is unstable by construction. An address crossing a size boundary joins one cohort and leaves another, carrying a cost basis it acquired elsewhere, and the reconstruction has to make an assumption about that.

The largest cohorts also contain exchanges and custodians, whose reconstructed entry describes the flow of other people’s coins rather than a decision anybody made. It is the single largest caveat on the biggest band, and it argues for reading the middle cohort with more confidence than the largest one. The estimate is at its most trustworthy where the addresses are large enough to matter and small enough to be somebody’s own coins.

How to read it

Humpbacks bought cheaper. The very largest owners got in at the better price, which typically means they were buying while the market fell.

Entry prices converged. Both ends of the large bracket paid much the same, so size is telling these owners apart in no useful way at present.

Sharks bought cheaper. The lesser of the two large brackets got in at the better price, which usually means the very biggest have been buying as the market rose.

The Supply dashboard draws Cost Basis by Wallet Size alongside Wallet Distribution, Cost Basis Heatmap and Accumulation Trend.

Common questions

Is this observed or estimated?

An approximation, and the chart admits as much. No entry price by holder size is recorded on chain, so each figure is reconstructed from what that bracket took in and let go, priced on the days it happened.

Why only the largest cohorts?

Because the smaller ones are swamped by negligible balances and by accounts wandering over a threshold, so anything reconstructed for them describes accounting rather than intentions.

What does comparing against spot show?

How far each cohort sits from break-even, so a group in profit and one underwater are immediately distinguishable rather than being read off a price axis.

Why is cohort membership a problem?

Because an address crossing a size boundary joins one cohort carrying a basis it acquired elsewhere, and the reconstruction has to assume something about that.

What is the largest caveat?

Exchanges and custodians sit in the biggest band, so its reconstructed entry partly describes the flow of other people’s coins rather than anybody’s decision.