An early Bitcoin (BTC) wallet tagged by Arkham Intelligence as "Satoshi Whale" (address: 1KFYo) has spent several weeks methodically transferring Bitcoin to Coinbase in near-identical 40.647 BTC batches, on-chain data shows.
The wallet's balance has dropped from approximately 11,000 BTC to roughly 2,000 BTC - a reduction of around 9,000 BTC, worth approximately $594 million at $66,000 per coin. The transfers are ongoing.
Multiple 40.647 BTC transactions to the same Coinbase deposit address (352zz) were recorded within the past two hours as of time of writing.
What the Chart Shows
Balance history data, visible in Arkham's wallet tracker, shows the drawdown began in late January and accelerated sharply through the first three weeks of February.
The pattern - a consistent batch size, a single destination, no interruption - is consistent with a programmatic or scheduled liquidation rather than an ad hoc decision to sell.
Sending cryptocurrency to a centralized exchange deposit address does not automatically confirm a sale. The coins could be transferred for custody, collateral, or OTC settlement purposes.
No independent confirmation of an outright sale has been reported by major analytics firms as of publication.
What "Satoshi Whale" Actually Means
Arkham's "Satoshi Whale" label refers to a wallet that held Bitcoin from Bitcoin's early years - not to Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Arkham has confirmed repeatedly that Satoshi's own 1.096 million BTC, spread across 22,000 addresses identified via the Patoshi Pattern, has not moved since 2010.
The wallet in question carries a descriptive tag, not a verified identity.
Why It Matters
The scale of the transfer is notable regardless of the seller's identity.
Nine thousand BTC represents roughly 0.04% of circulating supply, and consistent exchange inflows at this volume add to sell-side pressure during a period when Bitcoin is already trading at its weakest year-to-date levels on record.
Whether this constitutes profit-taking, portfolio rebalancing, or something else entirely cannot be determined from on-chain data alone - and the source material circulating on social media has overstated both the size of the transfer and its provenance.