The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has published research indicating that estimates of Bitcoin transfer value can diverge by as much as sixfold depending on the methodology used to identify and exclude change outputs. The paper, titled “Hidden by complexity?”, draws on data collected through the Mercurius system across multiple networks and argues that onchain figures require explicit definitions before they can be compared.
Bitcoin’s UTXO model means a wallet spending a 1 BTC output can send 0.2 BTC to a recipient while returning about 0.8 BTC to the sender as change. If an unadjusted calculation counts both outputs as transferred value, it inflates the amount paid between different parties. Since the blockchain does not label which output is change, analysts must infer it from transaction structure and address patterns, producing widely different results. The BIS found unadjusted and adjusted Bitcoin transfer-value estimates varied by a factor of roughly six.
The report also warns that a token ticker does not establish an issuer. Researchers identified 6,867 Ethereum token contracts using the symbol “USDT,” but a developer can choose a familiar ticker when deploying a token. The genuine Tether-issued asset should be verified by comparing its contract address and network with information from the issuer or a trusted registry.
The paper highlights different economic uses of USDT on Ethereum and Tron. Smart contracts at times held more than 20% of Ethereum-based USDT, compared with about 1% on Tron, indicating heavier use in DeFi liquidity pools and collateral. Tron-based USDT was more often held in regular addresses and exchange-related wallets, suggesting a stronger role in transfers, trading and balance storage. Combining the two networks into one figure can therefore mix economically different activity.
The BIS also points to total value locked as another metric where providers may include different contracts, use different token prices, or count assets multiple times through layered protocols. Before citing any onchain number, users should determine what is being measured, how internal movements are handled, how assets are identified, and whether the methodology can be reviewed.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice.
