The number of ETH holding addresses has reached 189 million—why is it far higher than Bitcoin’s 59 million? The latest analysis

According to the latest on-chain data released by Santiment, as of April 27, 2026, the number of non-zero balance addresses on Ethereum (Ethereum) reached 189,490,000, while the number of Bitcoin holding addresses was approximately 59,080,000. Ethereum leads by about 320%, with the number of holding addresses roughly 3.2 times that of Bitcoin. This gap means that Ethereum not only significantly surpasses Bitcoin in the number of holding addresses but also leads XRP, Cardano, Dogecoin, Chainlink, and major stablecoins like USDT and USDC.

Holding addresses significantly exceed Bitcoin; how do network design differences influence this metric?

The disparity in the scale of holding address data primarily stems from the fundamental differences in the design goals of the two blockchains. Bitcoin’s design revolves around scarcity and store of value, with core use cases focused on value transfer and long-term storage, resulting in relatively clear functional boundaries; Ethereum, on the other hand, is a programmable smart contract platform supporting decentralized finance (DeFi), stablecoin transfers, non-fungible token (NFT) trading, staking operations, and cross-chain interactions. These application scenarios often generate new on-chain addresses or trigger smart contract creation of temporary accounts with each interaction, naturally leading to a higher growth rate of Ethereum addresses compared to Bitcoin, which emphasizes single-value transfer.

A non-zero address represents an on-chain account holding a balance, not an individual real user. One user can use multiple wallets across different applications, and centralized exchanges may represent thousands of users holding address clusters. Therefore, the fact that Ethereum has about three times as many addresses does not directly translate to three times as many users. However, the comparability of this metric shows that within similar periods, Ethereum’s address growth rate has consistently outpaced Bitcoin, reflecting a structural divergence in participation and usage frequency between the two networks.

Why has Bitcoin’s address growth slowed while the data trajectories of the two chains diverge significantly?

From the long-term trend of the “total number of holding addresses” tracked by Santiment, Bitcoin has shown a relatively flat growth curve over the past few months, while Ethereum’s address count continues to rise, widening the “adoption gap.” The slowdown in Bitcoin’s address growth does not imply its fundamental viability is compromised but rather reflects two distinct value narratives: Bitcoin is increasingly viewed by the market as “digital gold”—a sedimentary asset that does not require high-frequency on-chain operations; Ethereum, on the other hand, functions as an active “settlement and execution layer” in the crypto economy, where users frequently create, transfer, and interact with addresses.

On-chain active address data provides another dimension of confirmation. Data from The Block shows that in April 2026, Ethereum’s 7-day moving average of active addresses was between approximately 450k and 600k, while Bitcoin’s active addresses during the same period were around 550k. The gap in scale is much less than the “3x difference” reflected in holding address data. This indicates that Ethereum’s lead in holding addresses is more about the accumulation scale of wallet accounts, while in daily transaction participation density, both are within the same order of magnitude.

Do daily new addresses and active interaction data point to genuine ecosystem demand expansion?

In the first quarter of 2026, Ethereum’s on-chain interaction metrics demonstrated strong resilience. Data released by Santiment on April 1 shows that the average daily active addresses on Ethereum exceeded 788,000, with over 255,000 new addresses added daily. Earlier data indicated that in February 2026, daily active addresses approached 2 million, with a 30-day moving average reaching 837,200, representing an approximately 82% increase over five years and over 1,100% over ten years.

Meanwhile, the historic decline in Ethereum’s Gas fees further lowered the barrier for new user participation. Currently, the average Gas fee on Ethereum has dropped to around $0.15, effectively eliminating the previous adoption obstacle posed by high transaction costs. The total value locked (TVL) in DeFi remains around $108.16 billion, indicating that capital has not exited en masse due to price corrections. All these pieces of evidence point to the same conclusion: address growth is not merely a buildup of “zombie accounts,” but is accompanied by genuine on-chain interactions and application capital deployment, indicating a coordinated expansion.

Can inflows of institutional funds and large accumulation addresses support long- and medium-term valuation models?

Although growth in holding addresses is partly driven by retail expansion, institutional movements are equally noteworthy. Since 2026, the daily capital inflow into Ethereum accumulation addresses has remained high, with the total of long-term holding addresses reaching about 25 million ETH, an increase of approximately 20.36% since the beginning of the year. Additionally, large wallets holding between 10,000 and 100,000 ETH, as well as “whale” wallets holding over 100,000 ETH, have continued to accumulate during 2026, with combined holdings totaling about 24.2 million ETH.

The emergence of institutional capital allocation behaviors shifts Ethereum’s valuation narrative from “retail adoption diffusion” to “capital structure allocation.” However, it must be noted that growth in holding addresses does not have a direct linear relationship with asset prices. An address can hold only a small amount of ETH and remain inactive on-chain for a long time, contributing little to actual demand. Therefore, valuation models based solely on total address count need to be cross-validated with other indicators such as application activity, capital retention rates, and staking participation.

Does the significant lead in holding addresses suggest a redefinition of the long-term value narrative of the asset?

The long-term trend of Ethereum’s address count increasingly surpassing Bitcoin’s is influencing investor perceptions of the two assets’ value frameworks. For Bitcoin, the slowdown in address growth has not weakened its role as a store of value—continued institutional accumulation and record-high spot ETF holdings indicate that Bitcoin’s narrative has shifted away from “user base expansion” toward “capital depth and liquidity reliability.” Conversely, Ethereum’s lead in addresses mainly reflects ecosystem breadth and interaction frequency.

In valuation models, this divergence implies that: when macro risk appetite declines and liquidity tightens, Bitcoin, with its simpler structure and established institutional base, often exhibits stronger relative resilience; when risk appetite recovers and DeFi, RWA, and other sectors restart expansion, Ethereum, with higher address activity and ecosystem capital capacity, tends to show greater price elasticity.

What new dimensions should valuation models incorporate given clear on-chain adoption diffusion signals?

In light of Ethereum’s persistent lead in holding addresses and the widening gap, traditional valuation frameworks need to incorporate the following new dimensions:

1. The ratio of active addresses to holding addresses. While 189 million holding addresses are large, only about 0.5%–1% of them generate daily on-chain interactions. Improving the conversion rate from holding to active addresses is key to measuring the network’s “real utility.”

2. The length and stability of capital inflows into accumulated addresses. Continuous capital inflow indicates long-term investor willingness to allocate. When daily average inflows remain above 200k ETH for several months, it signals reinforced medium- to long-term demand.

3. The quality of transaction growth under declining Gas fees. In a low Gas fee environment, simply increasing transaction count may be “watered down” by cheap interactions. It is necessary to analyze average Gas consumption per transaction and the types of smart contract calls to filter out low-value activity.

4. Cross-chain interactions and Layer-2 network activity as reflections of real address activity. Many activities have migrated to Layer-2 solutions like Arbitrum and Base. Address activity and capital flows on these networks are crucial for a comprehensive measure of Ethereum adoption.

5. Staking participation and validator distribution. Post-transition to proof-of-stake, the number of active validators, staked amounts, and exit queue dynamics can more directly reflect user willingness to lock capital for long-term yields.

Summary

Ethereum’s on-chain data shows approximately 189 million holding addresses, about 3.2 times that of Bitcoin, revealing a structural divergence in user participation modes between the two blockchains. Bitcoin continues to deepen its foundation as a “digital store of value” with increasing institutional holdings and record spot ETF positions, shifting its narrative away from “user growth” toward “capital depth and liquidity.” Ethereum, leveraging its programmable smart contracts, has built a denser on-chain interaction network, establishing a significant lead in holding addresses. However, holding addresses do not directly equate to valuation; prices are still influenced by spot demand, liquidity conditions, and macro expectations. Combining holding address data with active user metrics, capital accumulation signals, and Gas consumption quality provides a more complete picture of on-chain adoption diffusion.

FAQ

Q1: Does growth in holding addresses necessarily lead to an increase in Ethereum’s price?

Growth in holding addresses indicates improved network participation and user base expansion, which are positive fundamentals, but do not directly determine asset prices. Prices are ultimately influenced by spot trading demand, market liquidity, macroeconomic expectations, and risk appetite.

Q2: What are the main reasons Ethereum’s holding addresses significantly lead Bitcoin?

Primarily due to network design differences. As a smart contract platform supporting DeFi, stablecoins, NFTs, and high-interaction ecosystems, Ethereum users frequently create and interact with addresses. Bitcoin mainly focuses on value storage and transfer, with a more streamlined on-chain interaction pattern.

Q3: Are there “watered-down” factors affecting the growth of holding addresses?

Yes. Factors include: a single real user creating multiple addresses; centralized exchanges representing thousands of users through address clusters; new address growth from address poisoning or abnormal behaviors; complex mappings between Layer-2 active addresses and mainnet. Cross-verification with other on-chain indicators is necessary to improve signal reliability.

Q4: How to determine if adoption diffusion is ongoing based on on-chain data?

Focus on four key dimensions: the trend of daily net new addresses; the relative relationship between 30-day and 7-day moving averages of active addresses; the persistence of capital inflows into accumulated addresses; and the growth trend of staking participation and validator counts.

Q5: What are the current macro allocation logics for ETH and BTC?

Bitcoin is widely regarded as a digital store of value, with allocation strategies emphasizing macroeconomic uncertainty hedging and scarcity premiums; Ethereum’s allocation logic focuses on ecosystem expansion and on-chain application growth, with potentially stronger price elasticity during risk-on phases.