 Jonathan asks, what are your thoughts on the fact that only 15 million Bitcoin addresses hold more than $1, and less than $5 million hold more than $100 worth? I've seen these statistics a lot. Part of the implication here is that this shows that wealth is very unequally distributed within Bitcoin. Five addresses alone hold billions of dollars, and most addresses have very small amounts. Well, here's the thing, addresses are not people. Despite the fact that that is obviously true if you've done any of the research in this space, people seem to try to shoehorn these kinds of statistics to demonstrate some kind of fact, by going from the number of addresses and the amounts that are in them, and drawing conclusions, or simply implying things in a very weasley way, implying that this means that wealth is concentrated, or they can draw conclusions about the number of people who do X or Y. Here's why it's wrong. If you look at an organization like Coinbase, one of the very large exchanges, but this applies to all of the exchanges that use custodial accounts, they have 12-14 million customers at the moment. Do you think they have 14 million Bitcoin addresses? They do not. The vast majority of the funds is kept in a handful of addresses in cold storage. A company with 15 million users may only have 150 Bitcoin addresses that hold the wealth of 15 million users. That looks like an enormous concentration of wealth, but it doesn't belong to 150 users. It belongs to 15 million users, even though it is concentrated in 150 addresses. Meanwhile, on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, how many addresses does a power user who uses Bitcoin on a daily basis, with a hardware wallet that doesn't reuse addresses, that uses a different address per transaction, that generates changed addresses, that uses both segwits and regular addresses, etc., or multiple wallets, one on mobile, a warm wallet which is for operational expenses, a hot wallet which is on a smartphone for penny cash, and some cold storage? How does that user look like on the blockchain? I'm one of those users, and I can tell you, over the past five years, I've probably used 20,000 Bitcoin addresses. At any point in time, my wallets may have 200, 300, 500 addresses with change, and various small quantities, less than a dollar each, or slightly higher than a dollar, maybe one to three dollars. That activity looks like a whole bunch of people who have very little in terms of Bitcoin. I said 15 million Bitcoin addresses hold more than one dollar. Well, I can tell you, I've got a whole bunch of Bitcoin addresses that hold less than a dollar. You cannot make these conclusions. It is impossible to draw conclusions from statistics that divide, or cluster, addresses, and values. You will draw the wrong conclusions every time. Honeypodge points out that the question, the one I just answered about addresses, wasn't really about concentration of wealth. It was about that most people don't own their coins. Isn't that very dangerous to the network if there was a hack? Yes. If that was the point of that question, and I'm sorry I misunderstood it, because I have seen those kinds of statistics for weeks now being used to make some points about wealth distribution. You can, in fact, use that data to show that exchanges concentrate a lot of wealth in a few addresses, in custodial accounts, and yes, that is dangerous. It is dangerous if there is a hack. Let me rephrase that. You said, isn't that very dangerous to the network if there was a hack? It is not an if, it is a when. Is it dangerous? It is not dangerous to the network, but a lot of people will lose money. I think Bitcoin has shown great resilience, even with big hacks. Even if there is a hack, the money will get redistributed in the economy eventually. The network doesn't suffer, although a lot of people will lose money. It is very dangerous when there is a hack. It is not an if.