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 Critics argue this approach is outdated in the digital era, where pseudonymous wealth is verifiable on-chain, and suggest Forbes risks irrelevance by not adapting to decentralized finance.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.

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.

Scale AI, the fast-rising company that helps tech firms prepare data to train their artificial intelligence models, has launched a legal battle against one of its former sales employees and competitor Mercor.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday, alleges that the employee, Eugene Ling — who recently joined Mercor — “stole more than 100 confidential documents concerning Scale’s customer strategies and other proprietary information,” according to a copy of the suit reviewed by TechCrunch.

The case centers on claims of trade secret misappropriation against Mercor and breach of contract against Ling. Scale contends that Ling was actively pitching Mercor to one of Scale’s largest customers, referred to in the filing only as “Customer A,” before formally leaving his position at Scale.

Mercor co-founder Surya Midha pushed back, insisting the company had no use for Scale’s confidential material. In an emailed statement to TechCrunch, he acknowledged Ling may have been in possession of some documents but said they were never accessed.

“While Mercor has hired many people who departed Scale, we have no interest in any of Scale’s trade secrets and in fact are intentionally running our business in a different way. Eugene informed us that he had old documents in a personal Google Drive, which we have never accessed and are now investigating,” Midha said.

Midha added that Mercor had contacted Scale six days earlier to propose a resolution: “We reached out to Scale six days ago offering to have Eugene destroy the files or reach a different resolution, and we are now awaiting their response.”

Still, Scale claims the materials Ling allegedly held could directly enable Mercor to serve Customer A and other top-tier clients. The company asked Mercor to provide a complete list of files in Ling’s drive and to bar him from working with Customer A. According to the filing, Mercor refused.

The complaint notes that if Mercor were to secure Customer A, the contract would be worth “millions of dollars.” Though the customer’s identity is not revealed, the implication underscores how valuable Scale considers the relationship.

The case comes against the backdrop of a fierce race in the LLM training industry, where talent poaching has become the norm. Even with Meta’s $14.3 billion investment in June for a 49% stake in Scale — which included hiring away its founder — Mercor has been gaining ground. TechCrunch has previously reported that Meta’s core AI unit, TBD Labs, continues to use Mercor and other providers despite its multibillion-dollar bet on Scale.

Mercor’s strategy is distinctive: it hires content specialists, often PhDs, to label and structure data in their areas of expertise. This approach has helped the smaller company carve out a reputation for quality in a field dominated by players with massive funding.

Scale, meanwhile, has endured some turbulence. After Meta’s investment, several of Scale’s largest customers — themselves rivals to Meta in AI — reportedly severed ties, concerned about potential conflicts of interest. That exodus has heightened the pressure on Scale to protect existing contracts and prevent rivals like Mercor from siphoning off business.

Analysts believe this lawsuit illustrates a trend likely to accelerate: as AI companies battle for scarce talent, employee poaching will increasingly raise risks of trade secret theft and confidential document leaks.

In Silicon Valley and beyond, companies are aggressively hiring engineers, researchers, and specialists from one another. That churn makes it difficult to draw clear boundaries between what knowledge workers carry in their heads versus what they might take in files or emails — a gray area that often leads to courtroom disputes.

While intellectual property battles are not new in tech, the stakes in AI are particularly high. The data pipelines and client relationships underpinning LLM training can be worth millions per contract, and losing them could tilt the balance in an industry still in its formative years.

Ultimately, the Scale–Mercor case is not just about one ex-employee’s Google Drive. Many believe it underscores how fragile competitive advantages are in the AI industry, where a single leak of confidential strategies can shift the balance of power despite billions of dollars in investment.