75.8% Of Shiba Inu Investors HODLing Since 1+ Year: How Do Bitcoin & Co Compare?

bitcoinistPublicado a 2025-03-22Actualizado a 2025-03-23

Resumen

On-chain data shows Shiba Inu has more than 75% of its holders dormant since more than a year ago. Here's...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

On-chain data shows Shiba Inu has more than 75% of its holders dormant since more than a year ago. Here’s how Bitcoin and other coins compare.

Shiba Inu Compared Against Other Digital Assets In Long-Term Holders

In a new post on X, the market intelligence platform IntoTheBlock has discussed about how the various top coins in the cryptocurrency sector compare in terms of the percentage of long-term holders.

The analytics firm defines the “long-term holders” (LTHs) as the investors who have been holding onto their tokens since more than one year ago.

Statistically, the longer a holder keeps their coins dormant, the less likely they become to sell said coins. As such, the LTHs with their significant holding time would represent the side of the sector that’s the least likely to sell.

In other words, the supply held by these investors can be considered to essentially be frozen. Here is the chart shared by IntoTheBlock, that shows how this supply compares between the different top assets by market cap:

Shiba Inu Long-Term Holders

Looks like two coins have edged Shiba Inu out on this list | Source: IntoTheBlock on X

As displayed in the above graph, Litecoin (LTC) has topped the list in terms of this metric, with around 77.7% of its entire supply being locked in the wallets of the diamond hands. Chainlink (LINK) isn’t too far behind, with the indicator sitting at 77.5% for it.

The memecoin Shiba Inu (SHIB) also has a respectful value of the metric, with over three-quarters of its supply being in the control of the LTHs. Despite being the two largest assets by market cap, Ethereum (ETH) and Bitcoin (BTC) have lagged behind in the indicator, with it standing at 74.2% and 73.3%, respectively.

As mentioned before, the LTHs are resolute entities who are unlikely to part with their coins. As such, the stronger the dominance of this cohort, the stronger should be the theoretical supply crunch on any cryptocurrency.

Recently, the various coins in the sector have gone through a bull run followed by a crash, which is the type of volatility that can induce some selling from even the HODLers. The bull rally, especially, is probable to have forced some of these investors into taking their hard-earned profits.

Thus, the LTHs being this dominant for Shiba Inu and others despite all the volatility would suggest conviction is still strong around these assets.

SHIB Price

Shiba Inu, much like most of the cryptocurrency sector, has been unable to find any momentum to sustain a recovery run, as its price has only been sliding lower. At present, SHIB is trading around $0.0000125.

Below is a chart that shows how the memecoin’s trajectory has looked over the last three months.

Shiba Inu Price Chart

Shiba Inu appears to have been riding a downtrend since a while now | Source: SHIBUSDT on TradingView
Featured image from Shutterstock.com, IntoTheBlock.com, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Keshav is a Physics graduate who has been employed as a writer with Bitcoinist since June 2021. He is passionate about writing and through the years, he has gained experience working in a variety of niches. Keshav holds an active interest in the cryptocurrency market, with on-chain analysis being an area he particularly likes to research and write about.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Samsung Relies on Technology Cycles, SK Hynix on HBM, How Did Micron Win a Trillion-Dollar Market Cap?

Micron Technology, the third-largest memory chip maker alongside Samsung and SK Hynix, recently saw its market cap surpass $1 trillion. Founded in 1978 in Boise, Idaho, Micron survived brutal industry cycles while American peers and Japan's memory sector faltered. Its survival is attributed to a dual strategy: leveraging political and legal avenues for critical breathing room, coupled with relentless manufacturing cost control. Historically, Micron sought U.S. government intervention three times. In 1985, it filed an anti-dumping complaint against Japanese firms, leading to the U.S.-Japan Semiconductor Agreement. Ironically, this created an opening for Samsung, which later became its toughest competitor. In 2002, Micron turned "whistleblower" in a DRAM price-fixing investigation, escaping penalties while rivals were fined. In 2017, it sued China's Fujian Jinhua, contributing to its placement on a U.S. entity list, stifling a nascent competitor. However, a major strategic misstep occurred in 2013 with the acquisition of bankrupt Japanese firm Elpida. Integrating Elpida's mobile-DRAM-focused technology diverted resources, causing Micron to miss the critical early decade of development for High Bandwidth Memory (HBM)—the high-performance memory essential for AI chips like NVIDIA GPUs. By the time AI demand exploded in 2022, SK Hynix, which launched the first HBM in 2013, held about 85% of the HBM3 market, leaving Micron with roughly 3%. Micron now faces a triple squeeze. In the high-end HBM market, it lags significantly behind SK Hynix and Samsung. In the mid-to-low end DRAM market, it faces aggressive price competition from China's CXMT. Furthermore, a 2023 Chinese cybersecurity ban on its products slashed its revenue from China, a once-core market, from over 10% to just 7.1% by FY2025, causing it to exit China's data center server business. Beneath its political maneuvering lies Micron's core strength: exceptional manufacturing efficiency and cost control. Decades of engineering have yielded DRAM chips with a smaller cell area than rivals, meaning more chips per wafer and lower unit costs. This efficiency, not subsidies, has allowed it to withstand price wars. While political leverage bought time, Micron is now paying a "time debt" in the HBM race. It is racing to ramp up HBM3E production and develop HBM4, but catching up to competitors who started a decade earlier is a monumental challenge. Its future hinges on whether its expertise in cost control and political strategy can compensate for the lost time in a technology race where early-mover advantage is decisive.

链捕手Hace 19 min(s)

Samsung Relies on Technology Cycles, SK Hynix on HBM, How Did Micron Win a Trillion-Dollar Market Cap?

链捕手Hace 19 min(s)

New AMD Paper Overturns Conventional Wisdom: FP4 Training Instability's Cause Is Not Insufficient Randomness

AMD's new research challenges the conventional understanding of FP4 training instability. While reducing precision from FP8 to FP4 promises doubled computational throughput and is supported by new hardware like NVIDIA Blackwell and AMD MI350 series, training large language models natively with FP4 has been notoriously unstable, often attributed to insufficient stochasticity. The paper "Pretraining large language models with MXFP4 on Native FP4 Hardware" demonstrates successful end-to-end FP4 pre-training of Llama 3.1-8B on AMD MI355X GPUs using the MXFP4 format, achieving a 9-10% overall speedup over FP8. Crucially, it identifies the root cause of instability: not randomness, but the accumulation of *structural micro-scaling errors* along the sensitive weight gradient (Wgrad) path. Through controlled experiments, researchers found that quantizing the Wgrad operation to FP4 caused significant convergence degradation. Counterintuitively, common stochasticity-based mitigation techniques like stochastic rounding and randomized Hadamard transforms worsened performance. In contrast, applying a *deterministic* Hadamard transform successfully stabilized training by ensuring consistent error patterns, reducing the extra token cost from 26-27% to just 8-9%. This work has significant implications: 1) It provides a clear diagnostic for low-precision training instability, steering focus towards structural errors. 2) It pushes FP4 from a primarily inference-focused format into the realm of viable training. 3) It leverages the open OCP Microscaling (MX) standard, promoting cross-vendor compatibility. The research marks a critical step towards more economical large model training by further pushing the boundaries of low-precision computation.

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

New AMD Paper Overturns Conventional Wisdom: FP4 Training Instability's Cause Is Not Insufficient Randomness

marsbitHace 39 min(s)

Will ONDO's 'Tokenization Narrative' Change After Its CEO's Unexpected Passing?

Ondo Finance founder and CEO Nathan Allman has passed away unexpectedly. Allman, a Brown University graduate with a background in private credit and Goldman Sachs' digital asset team, was a key architect of Ondo's pivot from DeFi structured yield products to becoming a leading Real-World Asset (RWA) protocol. He drove the strategy to tokenize traditional financial assets like US Treasuries (OUSG), yield-generating dollar assets (USDY), and US stocks/ETFs (Ondo Global Markets) for on-chain accessibility. The company announced that President Ian De Bode, a former McKinsey partner with a strong institutional strategy and operations background, will succeed Allman as CEO. While Allman's sudden departure presents a near-term challenge, testing market confidence and Ondo's continuity, the project is seen as more than a founder-driven narrative. It has an established product suite and a management team with deep traditional finance experience. The long-term impact hinges on the new leadership's ability to execute. De Bode's expertise in compliance, distribution, and institutional partnerships aligns with RWA's next phase of scaling infrastructure. The core question is whether Ondo can maintain its product momentum and institutional relationships. Ondo's native ONDO token represents governance and RWA narrative value, not direct revenue from the underlying assets. Its future as a "top tokenization play" will depend on the team's continued delivery of product growth, asset scale, and real-world demand, moving beyond the initial emotional shock.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Will ONDO's 'Tokenization Narrative' Change After Its CEO's Unexpected Passing?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Bankless Co-founder's Confession on Selling Off ETH: Ethereum Did the Right Thing, but 'ETH as Money' Has No Future

Bankless co-founder David Hoffman recently sold his remaining ETH holdings, sparking debate within the Ethereum community. In a detailed explanation, Hoffman clarifies that his decision was not based on bearish sentiment towards Ethereum itself, which he remains highly optimistic about, but rather on the conclusion that the "ETH is Money" narrative has largely run its course. Hoffman argues that for ETH to achieve its envisioned status as global money, Ethereum needed to execute flawlessly across multiple layers—governance, technology, and market dominance—in a highly coordinated manner. He acknowledges Ethereum's significant successes and current justified valuation but suggests the window for a major revaluation based on this monetary narrative is closing. The post examines several challenges: the strong correlation between L1 chain activity/fees and native token value; the perceived failure of the "strong version" of crypto (user-owned, egalitarian systems) versus the rise of a "weak version" (efficient ledger technology for traditional finance); and the possibility that ETH's momentum as money was uniquely tied to the distorted conditions of the 2020-2021 period. Crucially, Hoffman highlights a structural tension: Ethereum is architected as a "giver, not a taker," providing critical infrastructure like secure block space and tokenization at cost. This ethos benefits the broader ecosystem (applications, L2s) but doesn't prioritize extracting maximum value for ETH itself. The "ETH is Money" thesis required Ethereum to win a war of overwhelming market dominance—a war its design philosophy refuses to explicitly fight. Therefore, while he sees continued immense success for the Ethereum network and its ecosystem (following a "fat application" theory where value accrues to apps and L2s), Hoffman finds it increasingly difficult to foresee a structural upward revaluation for the ETH asset based on the monetary narrative. His capital reallocation reflects a belief that this particular investment thesis has played out.

Odaily星球日报Hace 1 hora(s)

Bankless Co-founder's Confession on Selling Off ETH: Ethereum Did the Right Thing, but 'ETH as Money' Has No Future

Odaily星球日报Hace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片