Glassnode Co-Founder Puts Bitcoin With Exposed Public Keys at 6.26M BTC
A figure attributed to Glassnode co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft puts 6.26 million BTC behind public keys visible onchain. That is a reported estimate, not a count of coins that can be stolen today. The available reporting does not disclose how the figure was calculated.
- Reported estimate: 6.26 million BTC, or 31.2% of supply.
- Key distinction: A visible public key is not a revealed private key.
- Why it matters: A sufficiently capable future quantum computer could threaten some of the cryptography Bitcoin uses to authorize spending.
- What is missing: A clear definition of “exposed, ” a calculation method and a measurement cutoff.
In a report dated October 8, 2026, Crypto-Economy attributes the estimate to Schultze-Kraft and reproduces a post credited to him. The post gives the 6.26 million BTC figure and says it represents 31.2% of supply. It does not specify the supply denominator or cutoff date. The report also provides no dataset or calculation readers could use to reproduce the estimate.
That missing detail matters. The figure may help focus attention on Bitcoin’s long-term cryptographic risks, but it should not be treated as an independently established count of coins facing the same level of risk.
What does “exposed public key” mean?
Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography to authorize spending. A transaction includes a digital signature that nodes check against a public key. The corresponding private key must stay secret. Knowing the public key does not ordinarily let someone spend the bitcoin.
When a public key becomes visible depends on the Bitcoin output type and its history. Some older output types put the public key directly onchain. In common hash-based formats, the key is generally revealed when an output is spent. If the same key is reused, that revealed key may also be linked to other unspent outputs.
Taproot works differently. Its output data includes a public key, specifically an output key. That does not reveal the private key, but it means a count based on visible keys could include coins with different histories and technical characteristics.
The reported estimate does not say which output types or histories it counts. It also does not explain whether it measures unspent outputs, balances linked to visible keys or another category. These measures are not interchangeable. Without a clear definition, it is impossible to tell how much of the 6.26 million BTC shares the same theoretical risk.
Quantum risk is a future concern, not a current heist
The long-term concern is that a quantum computer powerful enough to run Shor’s algorithm at useful scale could attack the elliptic-curve cryptography behind Bitcoin’s signatures. In theory, an attacker could use a known public key to derive its corresponding private key and spend associated funds.
The reporting behind this estimate does not demonstrate a practical capability to break Bitcoin keys. Public-key visibility alone does not make coins readily spendable, and the 6.26 million BTC figure is not evidence of an active compromise. For a broader technical overview, see quantum resistance.
As reproduced by Crypto-Economy, Schultze-Kraft’s post frames the reported balance as bitcoin that would need to move in a future migration. That is one proposed implication of the estimate, not an adopted Bitcoin network plan. Any migration would depend on the design of new spending options and decisions by users, developers and the broader network.
Why the uncertainty matters
Crypto-Economy also reports changes in exposed supply and estimates for exchanges and other custodians. But the report does not provide the underlying data or explain how it attributed balances to those entities and classified them as exposed. Without those details, the figures cannot support confident comparisons or explain why the reported total changed.
Even a transparent count of exposed coins would not settle what Bitcoin should do about a future quantum threat. A migration could raise difficult questions about coins whose owners have lost their keys or cannot move them. Restricting those funds would be a serious property-rights and governance decision, not a routine technical task. The reported estimate does not establish that any such decision has been made.
For holders, the sensible response is attention, not panic. The estimate does not establish an urgent need to move funds or point to a specific migration action. Clear definitions, reproducible data and careful protocol work are needed before a headline figure can guide decisions.
Key questions and answers
-
Who is credited with the 6.26 million BTC estimate?
Crypto-Economy attributes it to Glassnode co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft, citing a post credited to him. The material provided does not independently verify the calculation.
-
Can the reported 6.26 million BTC be stolen today?
The figure refers to public-key visibility, not exposed private keys or compromised coins. The reporting does not demonstrate a practical attack capable of breaking Bitcoin keys today.
-
How was the estimate calculated?
The report does not provide the dataset, a precise definition of “exposed, ” the supply denominator or the measurement cutoff. Treat the figure as a reported estimate, not a settled network statistic.
-
Should Bitcoin holders move their coins now?
The estimate alone does not justify an urgent move or point to a particular migration action. Public-key visibility is not the same as present-day spendability, and the report does not establish a network-wide migration plan.