One of the biggest mysteries in finance is not just why the anonymous creators of Bitcoin, sitting in Nakamoto at and one of the biggest personal fates in history, are not appearing in the rankings of billionaires.
Forbes, the publication that created the “world billionaires,” cites cultural touchstones, quietly drawing lines in the sand. It may say more about them than Nakamoto Atoshi.
Forbes Billionaire Rankings Stick to Old Rules of Identity and Documentation
At the time of writing, Bitcoin is trading for $110,302. Therefore, the dormant hidden hidden hidden of Nakamoto Atoshi is worth more than $121 billion, and is sufficient to rival the fate of Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault.
However, Satoshi’s name is not in the Forbes billionaires rankings. reason?
“Forbes couldn’t confirm whether he or she is a living person or a group of one person and one person, so Nakamoto is not included in the billionaire rankings,” the magazine told Beincrypto.
That explanation reveals a central flaw in how wealth is measured today. In an age where assets can be proven in chains, Forbes clings to a framework rooted in identity, legal structure, and corporate applications.
Sato is not excluded as wealth is not authentic. Rather, wealth doesn’t fit the story, so Forbes is used to tell.
Satoshi’s Ghost Fortune exposes a crack in an identity trap
Forbes is not anti-cryptography. That ranking regularly includes exchange founders such as Changpeng Zhao (CZ), token billionaires like Justin Sun, and institutional players.
“Forbes is a known crypto-holding factor in all wealth valuations. Forbes deals with crypto-holding like any other property. If a person owns a crypto business, we value the business.
However, Forbes’ methodology remains connected to the 20th century assumption that wealth must be linked to faces and filing cabinets.
Offshore trusts, shell companies, and anonymous corporate structures do not prevent billionaires from being ranked, as there are corporations they are ultimately tied to.
Satoshi does not have a name, passport or paper trail. Only a set of keys on the blockchain. The assets are more transparent than most destinies on the Forbes List, but somehow they are treated as not so legal.
Previous attempts to reveal the identity of the creator of the pseudonym Bitcoin flops. This includes the theory of the HBO documentary, and has proven to be highly controversial. Individuals like Nick Szabo, Peter Todd and Craig Wright also presented candidates as candidates.
Others also fronted Twitter founder Jack Dorsey as Satoshi of Nakamoto, but all of this has no significant evidence to support the claim.
Was it justified or outdated? Experts discuss Forbes’ stance
Not everyone believes Forbes is wrong. Brian Trepannier, founder and president of On-Demand Transactions, argues that exclusion is merely common sense.
“That’s justified. Anonymous individuals with dormant wallets cannot be fairly compared to individuals who actively exercise wealth,” Trepanier told Beincrypto.
According to Trepanier, a better approach is for Forbes to create a list of the biggest wallets and their holdings. He says this gives recognition without misrepresenting ownership.
For Trepanier, the fact that Satoshi’s wallets have been frozen in time for over a decade undermines the claim that this is usable wealth.
“It’s not about what wealth is held, but not just about what is exercised. As long as these coins do not move, Satoshi’s holdings are more of a symbol of the origins of the code than an active property in the real world,” he said.
That debate resonates with those who see the rankings of billionaires more about economic power than their raw account balances.
Furthermore, he believes Forbes’ position is increasingly unacceptable. Mete Al, co-founder of ICB Labs, says his refusal to admit Satoshi reflects a blind spot.
“Forbes still functions within the traditional finance (TRADFI) framework where wealth is tied to corporations, names or bank accounts, but blockchain has changed that reality.
Meteal points out the irony that many billionaires hide their wealth behind opaque legal structures and offshore accounts, but they still make up Forbes List.
In contrast, Satoshi coins can be seen by anyone who has a Blockchain Explorer.
“Why should Satoshi be treated differently?” he poses.
Elsewhere, NOONES CEO Ray Youssef says Forbes’ methodology goes beyond not missing the point.
According to Youssef, Forbes’ approach is unrelatedly at risk, as today’s wealth is no longer tied to traditionally recognized assets
“With the rise of the digital age and the increasing decentralized economy, wealth has existed in chains and can now be fully verified. Nakamoto Atoshi’s story shows the fundamental changes in which a dispersed era existed.”
By refusing to adapt, Youssef warns that legacy outlets risk transferring credibility to Web3-native media, which already track digital wealth with nuance.
Measuring power in the digital age
Satoshi’s absence also hides how much influence the pseudonymous wealth has already exerted. A single transaction from Nakamoto’s wallet will dominate the headline and rattle market in a way that few corporate announcements have been made.
According to Mete Al, ignoring them doesn’t erase the impact. Rather, it blinds mainstream viewers to just how much power Crypto represents today.
Web3 expert and Ambassador BestChange, Nikita Zuborev, reiterated his feelings in a statement to Beincrypto.
“Forbes’ choice makes sense when sticking to traditional rules. Their list of billionaires is all about identifiable individuals, and Satoshi doesn’t know if it’s one person or an entire team.
So what will come next? Even skeptics like Trepanier suggest that Forbes can publish a supplementary list of the biggest wallets and balances.
Some suggest that while acknowledging the scale of digital wealth, they avoid identity issues.
In addition to satisfying Crypto’s recognition demands, the hybrid approach will also provide transparency to growing asset classes and help you understand how much value is distributed outside of traditional systems.
“They are either the evolution or risk of new institutions coming to create rival methodologies that take into account the growing nature of wealth in the digital age,” Youssef warned.
Why is it important?
At first glance, Satoshi’s exclusion seems like a methodological quirk. However, if you look closely, it becomes a symbol of the battle between the two definitions of wealth.
Forbes rankings are built on identity, documentation and legacy finance. Bitcoin and Satoshi’s Ghost Fortune are built on a lack of mathematics, transparency and identity.
By moving Nakamoto away from the list, Forbes shows that beyond technical calls, Old World rules still define the rank of billionaires.
Whether or not that attitude is maintained is an open question as crypto forms a financial reality.
Nevertheless, ignoring Satoshi doesn’t destroy them. Rather, it simply highlights the limitations of billionaires rankings at an age where one of the richest living entities may remain unknown forever.
Disclaimer
In compliance with Trust Project guidelines, Beincrypto is committed to reporting without bias and transparent. This news article is intended to provide accurate and timely information. However, we recommend that readers independently verify the facts and consult with experts before making decisions based on this content. Please note that our terms and conditions, privacy policy and disclaimer have been updated.
