Forbes excludes Satoshi Nakamoto from its billionaire list primarily because they cannot verify whether Nakamoto is a living individual or a group, and there’s no identifiable legal entity tied to the pseudonym.
Despite Nakamoto’s estimated 1.1 million BTC, worth over $121 billion at $110,302 per Bitcoin, Forbes’ methodology requires a confirmed identity, passport, or paper trail, which Nakamoto lacks—unlike other billionaires who use offshore trusts or shell companies but are still traceable to a legal entity.
The transparency of Nakamoto’s blockchain-based wealth, visible to anyone with a blockchain explorer, contrasts with Forbes’ reliance on traditional markers of wealth like stocks or corporate filings. Critics argue this approach is outdated in the digital era, where pseudonymous wealth is verifiable on-chain, and suggest Forbes risks irrelevance by not adapting to decentralized finance.
Some propose Forbes could include pseudonymous wallets in supplemental lists to reflect this shift. Forbes’ exclusion of Satoshi Nakamoto, despite their estimated 1.1 million BTC (worth over $121 billion at $110,302 per BTC), signals a reluctance to fully recognize cryptocurrency as a legitimate form of wealth.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
This could undermine the perceived validity of digital assets in traditional finance, potentially slowing mainstream adoption. Forbes’ methodology favors conventional assets (stocks, real estate, corporate holdings) tied to verifiable identities or legal entities.
This biases their rankings against pseudonymous or decentralized wealth, which is transparent on blockchains but lacks traditional markers like passports or corporate filings. It risks alienating a growing segment of wealth holders in the crypto space.
The exclusion highlights a disconnect between old-school financial reporting and the decentralized finance (DeFi) era. As crypto wealth grows—potentially surpassing $10 trillion by 2030, per some estimates—Forbes may face pressure to adapt its criteria or risk becoming irrelevant to a new generation of investors and wealth creators.
Nakamoto’s anonymity embodies Bitcoin’s ethos of decentralization and privacy. Forbes’ insistence on identity verification clashes with this philosophy, potentially alienating crypto communities who view pseudonymity as a feature, not a flaw. This could fuel alternative wealth rankings by crypto-native platforms.
By not acknowledging pseudonymous wealth, Forbes misses a chance to lead in redefining billionaire lists for the digital age. Including figures like Nakamoto in supplemental lists (e.g., “Pseudonymous Wealth Holders”) could enhance their relevance and appeal to crypto audiences.
How Forbes Verifies Crypto Wealth
Forbes’ verification process for crypto wealth aligns with its traditional methodology but struggles to accommodate the unique nature of cryptocurrencies: Forbes requires a verifiable identity tied to a legal entity (individual, trust, or company).
For crypto billionaires like Changpeng Zhao or Brian Armstrong, Forbes links their wealth to known holdings in exchanges (e.g., Binance, Coinbase) or documented wallets, corroborated by public records, corporate filings, or interviews. Pseudonymous figures like Nakamoto, lacking a confirmed identity, are excluded.
For identified individuals, Forbes may use publicly disclosed wallet addresses or exchange data to estimate holdings, cross-referencing with blockchain explorers. They apply current market prices (e.g., $110,302 per BTC as of now) to estimate the value of verified crypto holdings.
Forbes often applies discounts to crypto wealth due to volatility and liquidity constraints, unlike stocks or real estate, which can lower reported net worth. Forbes relies on exchanges, blockchain analytics firms (e.g., Chainalysis), or industry insiders to confirm holdings. For example, they might verify a billionaire’s stake in a crypto exchange through equity disclosures or public statements, but pseudonymous wallets lack such corroboration.
Nakamoto’s 1.1 million BTC is traceable on the blockchain, with early mining wallets widely attributed to them. However, Forbes cannot confirm if these belong to a single living person, a group, or if the keys are still accessible. This uncertainty, combined with their identity requirement, leads to exclusion.
Forbes has included crypto billionaires like the Winklevoss twins, who hold significant Bitcoin, because their identities and holdings are verifiable through legal entities and public disclosures. Yet, Nakamoto’s transparent but pseudonymous wealth doesn’t meet Forbes’ threshold, exposing a gap in their methodology for DeFi-era assets.
Forbes’ approach reflects caution but also rigidity. Blockchain transparency allows anyone to verify Nakamoto’s holdings, unlike opaque offshore trusts used by traditional billionaires. Posts on X suggest growing frustration with Forbes’ outdated criteria, with some calling for crypto-native wealth lists that prioritize on-chain data over identity.
As crypto wealth grows, Forbes may need to evolve or cede influence to platforms that embrace decentralized verification methods.