New reporting indicates that firms holding Ethereum on corporate treasuries now represent a higher percentage of ETH circulating supply than companies holding bitcoin represent of BTC. The observation comes from a recent item in Sherwood News and rests on public on-chain transaction history and wallet labels visible to researchers.
Become a Doc: Profile Ethereum wallets and discover their behavior.
Use WalletAutopsy.
How researchers compared treasury holdings
On-chain tracing provides the backbone for this comparison. Analysts identify wallets associated with corporate treasuries by following public disclosures, observable transfers, and clustering patterns. After labeling those addresses, they measure token balances against circulating supply metrics to calculate a percentage of supply held by corporate entities.
Crypto analytics firms and independent observers use similar approaches, but results depend on methodology. Definitions of "treasury" vary: some studies include venture capital funds, grant accounts and multisig wallets controlled by organizations, while others limit the set to corporate reserves disclosed on balance sheets. Differences in wallet classification, the treatment of custodial addresses and whether wrapped or staked tokens count toward holdings all affect the final comparison.
Protocol design and supply mechanics matter
Ethereum and bitcoin differ in issuance and token flows in ways that affect percentage calculations. Bitcoin has a fixed issuance schedule and a long history of being held as a store of value by institutions. Ethereum operates with continuous issuance and a burn mechanism tied to network fees, which alters net supply dynamics over time. Staking and smart contract locks also remove ETH from immediate circulation without removing ownership from treasury balance sheets.
Burn and lock-up effects can make a smaller circulating base a larger benchmark for treasury percentages. If the analysis counts circulating supply excluding staked or burned tokens, an organization holding the same nominal amount of ETH can represent a larger share of the circulating pool than a similar BTC holding would represent under bitcoin's supply rules.
Corporate treasury strategies and asset roles
Treasury objectives vary across firms. Some organizations maintain crypto on-balance-sheet for liquidity, treasury yield strategies, or to support product operations. Ethereum's programmability creates additional use cases for corporate reserves, including direct interaction with decentralized finance and smart contracts that require native tokens. That functional demand can lead organizations to hold ETH specifically, influencing the composition of corporate crypto portfolios.
Custody choices affect visibility. When firms use third-party custodians, their holdings may appear under large custodial addresses that are harder to attribute. Directly controlled multisig wallets are easier to classify as treasuries. The mix of custody types can produce apparent concentration differences between ETH and BTC holdings even when corporate intent is similar.
Market and risk implications for wallets and liquidity
Concentration in treasuries has implications for market liquidity. Large, concentrated holdings can amplify price moves when transfers or liquidations occur, and they change the supply dynamics available to traders. The presence of sizable organizational wallets on the chain creates identifiable pressure points that exchanges and market makers consider when assessing depth and volatility.
Operational risk is also relevant. Corporate holdings rely on secure custody, sound key management and clear governance for multisig setups. The way organizations store and move assets influences broader market trust, and visible on-chain flows tied to known treasuries can affect counterparties’ assessments of counterparty risk.
Limitations and caveats in on-chain comparison
Labeling challenges produce uncertainty. Not every address that moves funds looks like a treasury, and not every disclosed treasury is easy to track. Wrapped versions of assets, cross-chain bridges and off-chain custodial arrangements introduce elements that on-chain analysis can miss or misattribute. These factors mean reported percentages should be treated as directional indicators rather than precise audits.
Sherwood News provided the initial report that put this comparison in the headlines. Their piece highlights the result based on available data and classification choices. Independent verification by other analysts and more granular methodology disclosure would improve confidence in the figures and allow more exact comparison across protocols.
What this means for regulators and market observers
Regulatory interest may grow as corporate crypto holdings become easier to quantify on-chain. Transparent disclosure by firms can reduce ambiguity, while consistent reporting standards would help market participants and supervisors evaluate systemic concentration and liquidity risks. Improved monitoring tools and reporting frameworks can make corporate reserves more visible without compromising operational security.
Better crypto analytics and standardized disclosure together would enhance market clarity. Public data offer powerful insight, but the community would benefit from shared definitions of circulating supply, treasury accounts and custody types. That work can reduce misinterpretation and support more informed decisions by investors, exchanges and policymakers.
Practical steps for treasuries and stakeholders
Transparency and controls are advisable. Organizations holding substantial token reserves can improve market understanding by disclosing custody arrangements, governance structures and any operational constraints on moving assets. Risk managers should consider concentration metrics relative to circulating supply when setting policy, and they should account for protocol-specific mechanics such as burns and staking locks.
Wallet hygiene remains essential. Whether organizations use self-custody multisig or third-party services, strong operational practices reduce the chances of accidental exposure and provide clearer signals to the market when funds are intentionally reallocated.
Conclusion
Public on-chain data makes it possible to compare how much of a token supply rests with identifiable corporate entities. Sherwood News drew attention to findings that point to a higher share of Ethereum supply held by treasuries than the comparable bitcoin share. Confirmation of that pattern will require careful cross-checking of methods, and improved disclosure by treasuries would contribute to a clearer picture for investors and market monitors alike.
Close attention to on-chain movements and clearer reporting practices will help market participants assess concentration and liquidity in major token ecosystems. The details matter, and continued analysis of wallets and reserves will be necessary to interpret what these holdings mean for price dynamics and operational risk.