Lee opens the picture with a funeral, or, rather, a small family piling into their car to get to the funeral venue. Wife and mother Mi-ok (Jeon Do-yeon) wonders if she’s wearing the right dress, and the shoes she has chosen, a pair she hasn’t worn in a long time, are already pinching her feet. Her husband, Ho-seok (Sul Kyung-gu), says little—so little that it’s clear he’s filled with dread over whatever awaits him at this upcoming, obviously unhappy social event. Their extremely quiet young son (Jung Seop) sits in the back seat, amusing himself by dangling an empty chip bag out the window like a windsock. “It’s flying,” he says, just before letting it go—he’s not the only one feeling the oppressiveness of that car ride.

It’s never expressly spelled out who this funeral is for, but we can intuit that it’s one of Ho-seok’s former work colleagues. It turns out that Ho-seok is one of many workers who not so long ago lost his job at a large corporation, SP, and he hasn’t yet recovered, either financially or emotionally. Mi-ok is doing the best she can—she holds down a menial factory job—but her husband’s depression and excessive drinking is getting to her. By chance, in the funeral home parking lot, she meets a handsome stranger, Sang-woo (Zo In-sung), who moves his very expensive car when Mi-ok believes her wedding ring, having slipped off her finger, has rolled beneath it. It turns out that Sang-woo’s wife, Ye-ji (Cho Yeo-Jong), is making a documentary about, as she puts it, “the personal lives of laborers.” Ye-ji is thrilled to have found Mi-ok and Ho-seok as subjects—she’s particularly interested in the melancholic Ho-seok, who, she believes, could be the dramatic key her project. But she and Mi-ok also genuinely like each other and strike up a friendship. Possible Love traces the tangled dynamics between these four characters, while also flirting with uncomfortable questions about the moral quandaries that can arise in any filmmaker-subject relationship.

Coins mined in Bitcoin’s earliest era have finally stirred after more than 16 years of inactivity, prompting fresh speculation that they could be tied to Satoshi Nakamoto. According to on-chain analysis highlighted by Cointelegraph, 12 dormant Bitcoin addresses collectively moved 600 BTC on Saturday—an amount currently valued around $48 million.

While the timing has fueled “Satoshi-era” narratives, Whale Alert’s research claims it found no evidence linking the transactions to Nakamoto. The platform says the moved funds trace back to block rewards earned during March 2010, when Satoshi was still actively involved with the project’s early development and communications—before gradually stepping back.

Key takeaways

• On-chain data reviewed by Cointelegraph shows 12 Bitcoin addresses moved a total of 600 BTC after more than 16 years of dormancy.
• Whale Alert traced the 600 BTC to mining rewards paid across 12 Bitcoin blocks in March 2010, each originally issued as a 50 BTC subsidy.
• Whale Alert says none of those blocks can be connected to Satoshi Nakamoto based on its analysis.
• Prior work by Whale Alert covered only seven of the rewards, while Lookonchain had earlier identified seven miner wallets moving 350 BTC.
• The fact that the coins were mined while Nakamoto was still involved is driving attention—but “same era” is not the same as “same owner.”

Early blocks, long dormancy, and a sudden wake-up

The renewed activity centers on a cluster of very old wallets that had not shown movement for over a decade and a half. Cointelegraph reports that 12 addresses collectively moved 600 BTC after more than 16 years. Whale Alert, a blockchain transaction tracking platform, said the amount originated from rewards mined across 12 distinct Bitcoin blocks.

For investors and on-chain observers, these kinds of “awakening” events matter because they can create a brief narrative spike: dormant supply can look like potential future sell pressure, even when no immediate market impact is confirmed. In this case, the key question is not just that the coins moved, but where they came from—and who may have controlled them.

Whale Alert told Cointelegraph that its research did not find a link between the mined blocks and Nakamoto. This point is important: speculation often increases when activity occurs during a period associated with Nakamoto’s involvement, but attribution claims require more than chronology.

Whale Alert expands its tracing from seven to twelve rewards

Whale Alert’s updated work reportedly traces all 12 block rewards to Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010. At that time, the protocol paid a 50 BTC block subsidy per block. Since then, the subsidy has been reduced repeatedly through halvings; the most recent reduction referenced in the report came in April 2024, when the block subsidy fell from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC per block.

The analysis also builds on Whale Alert’s earlier effort. Cointelegraph notes that Whale Alert had previously examined seven of the rewards and said it identified those blocks as not mined by Nakamoto. In the updated accounting, Whale Alert now extends its tracing to cover the remaining five rewards as well.

Independent on-chain analytics had already surfaced part of the story. Cointelegraph says Lookonchain initially identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after 16.5 years of inactivity, attributing the funds to mining activity in March 2010. Taken together, the different layers of analysis underscore a consistent theme: these were mining rewards from early blocks—not some later token swap or unrelated transfer.

Why “Satoshi-era” is a tempting narrative—and a weak proof

The movement drew attention largely because March 2010 sits squarely in the period when Satoshi Nakamoto was still active in Bitcoin development and communications. Cointelegraph points to Nakamoto’s involvement continuing through 2010, with the last known communication dating to April 2011.

However, the editorial distinction here matters: “mined during the time Nakamoto was around” does not automatically mean “controlled by Nakamoto.” Whale Alert’s spokesperson emphasized that none of the blocks associated with the 12 rewards could be connected to Nakamoto based on its research.

Cointelegraph also reports a behavioral detail that further complicates simple attribution. Whale Alert said one of the rewards moved several blocks before most of the others, suggesting the early transfer pattern could align with a test transaction preceding the rest of the movements. In other words, even if multiple rewards originate from the same month and subsidy era, the way the coins were handled over time may reflect operational behavior rather than a single, easily identifiable owner.

What to watch next after these long-dormant transfers

When ancient Bitcoin moves, the immediate on-chain fact is clear—coins changed hands from addresses that had been silent for years. What remains uncertain is the economic intent behind the transfers: whether these movements represent consolidation, internal housekeeping, or preparations that could later involve liquidation.

For readers monitoring these developments, the most practical next step is to track where the 600 BTC ultimately flows after the initial movement, and whether any portion returns to new dormant addresses or heads toward exchanges. The “Satoshi” question may remain speculative without stronger evidence, but the real signal for market participants will be the downstream path of the coins and how quickly—if at all—the revived supply reaches liquidity.

Bitcoin mined in 2010 moved from long-dormant addresses after more than 16 years, reigniting speculation over a possible link to Satoshi Nakamoto.

Twelve addresses holding a combined 600 Bitcoin (BTC), worth about $48 million, moved the coins on Saturday after more than 16 years of dormancy, according to onchain data reviewed by Cointelegraph.

Whale Alert, a blockchain transaction tracking platform, said the 600 BTC came from rewards mined across 12 Bitcoin blocks and that its research found no connection to Nakamoto.

“None of the blocks can be connected to Satoshi based on our research,” a spokesperson for Whale Alert told Cointelegraph, tempering speculation around the origins of coins mined while Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator was still active.

Whale Alert traces all 12 mining block rewards

Whale Alert traced all 12 rewards to Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010, when each block paid a 50 BTC block subsidy. The subsidy has since been cut in half four times, most recently in April 2024, when it fell from 6.25 BTC to the current 3.125 BTC per block.

The findings expand on Whale Alert’s earlier analysis of seven of the rewards. It said in an X post on Sunday that those seven originated from blocks it had determined were not mined by Nakamoto.

The mining blocks and addresses for the 12 dormant Bitcoin rewards. Source: Whale Alert

Lookonchain, an onchain analytics platform, had also initially identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after 16.5 years of inactivity, saying the wallets earned the coins through mining in March 2010.

Satoshi-era doesn’t mean Satoshi’s Bitcoin

The movement attracted attention partly because the coins date to a period when Nakamoto was still actively involved with Bitcoin.

Nakamoto remained involved in Bitcoin development and communications through 2010 before gradually withdrawing from the project, with their last known communication dating to April 2011.

One of the 12 addresses received a 50 BTC mining reward on March 5, 2010, and moved the coins to a new address on Sept. 5, 2026. Source: Blockchain.com

Whale Alert noted that one reward moved several blocks before most of the others, saying the pattern was consistent with a test transaction before the remaining transfers.

Magazine: BTC will hit $1M by 2030… but Arthur Hayes is buying ETH instead

Kraken is offering perpetual futures tied to the private-market valuations of OpenAI and Anthropic, giving eligible traders leveraged exposure before either artificial intelligence company completes a public listing.

The cash-settled contracts support long and short positions, have no expiration date and offer leverage of up to 5x.The exchange promoted its Anthropic contract again on Sept. 6 after initially announcing both products in June. Kraken’s official post identified the Anthropic contract as PF_ANTHROPICXUSD and confirmed support for multi-collateral margin.

OpenAI trades under the PF_OPENAIXUSD symbol. Neither contract represents shares issued by the companies, and Kraken says it has no affiliation with, endorsement from or sponsorship by OpenAI or Anthropic.

Kraken’s pre-IPO perps do not represent company shares

The products are derivatives designed to track traders’ expectations of each company’s value. Buying an Anthropic or OpenAI contract does not place the customer on either company’s shareholder register.

Contract holders do not receive voting rights, dividends, information rights or access to a future public offering. They also have no claim on OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s assets.Instead, the contracts settle in U.S. dollars through Kraken’s multi-collateral derivatives account. Eligible users can provide several supported assets as margin, subject to the exchange’s collateral haircuts and risk rules.

Kraken’s announcement says traders can use the contracts to take directional positions or hedge other exposure. However, the claim that a trader can “hedge an existing Anthropic position” depends on how closely the synthetic futures price follows the value of any private shares held elsewhere.

However, a private-company shares do not trade continuously on a centralized public exchange. Transactions can occur through private secondary markets at different prices and under varying transfer restrictions. The futures contract may therefore move differently from a particular private shareholding.

Crypto.news previously explained that pre-IPO perpetuals offer exposure without company ownership, creating a market for private-company valuations without a continuously traded underlying stock.

Synthetic pricing replaces a public stock index

Normal equity futures can use a stock exchange price as their external reference. Kraken cannot do that for OpenAI or Anthropic because neither company has publicly traded shares.

The exchange instead created the Kraken PreMarket Synthetic index. Its value comes from activity in the perpetual market itself rather than an independent public share price.Kraken applies exponential smoothing to the index. The process reduces the influence of short-lived order-book movements and causes the reference value to adjust gradually when market prices change.

The contracts’ mark prices are also restricted to within 0.25% above or below the synthetic index. Kraken says this mechanism is designed to limit liquidations caused by momentary price spikes in a thin market.

That protection does not remove valuation risk. If participants collectively misprice a private company, the synthetic index can reflect that view because no liquid spot market exists to correct the contract through ordinary arbitrage.Spreads may also be wider than those in mature equity or cryptocurrency futures. Limited liquidity can make it more expensive to open or close a position, particularly during volatile periods.

Anthropic-linked futures on other platforms previously fell as much as 9% following additional exchange listings. The decline demonstrated how private-company futures can move sharply without a public reference price.

Maximum leverage falls as positions grow

Moreover, Both Kraken contracts offer a base maximum leverage of 5x. At that level, a trader must provide initial margin equal to 20% of the position’s value.

The base maintenance margin is 10%. If losses reduce the account below the required level, Kraken can liquidate the position.Leverage decreases for larger positions. Kraken’s published tiers step down from 5x to approximately 3.3x and then 2x as exposure increases.Funding payments are realized every hour. Kraken describes funding as “structurally minimal” during the pre-IPO period because the mark price remains within the narrow band around its synthetic index.

That description is a company assessment rather than a guaranteed funding cost. Funding can change as market positioning, liquidity and contract specifications change.

The products also carry auto-deleveraging risk. Under that process, profitable positions may be reduced when the exchange cannot close a liquidated counterparty’s position through the order book.Kraken warns that customers can lose all of their margin. Its disclosure also says leveraged losses can exceed the trader’s initial deposit, depending on market conditions and account arrangements.

U.S. and European customers cannot trade the contracts

The Anthropic and OpenAI perpetuals are unavailable in the U.S., European Economic Area, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Only professional clients can access them in the United Kingdom.

Payward Digital Solutions offers the products from Bermuda. The company is licensed to conduct digital asset business by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, according to Kraken’s disclosure.

The geographic exclusions matter because the contracts reference two prominent U.S. companies but are not offered to U.S. traders. They are also separate from Kraken’s regulated U.S. derivatives products.Other exchanges have built similar markets. Coinbase added private-company perpetuals tied to OpenAI and Anthropic for eligible users outside the U.S., while Hyperliquid and several specialized platforms have offered synthetic exposure to companies approaching public listings.

The growth of these products has raised questions about whether private-company derivatives should receive a dedicated regulatory framework. They combine leveraged crypto-market trading with valuations of companies whose financial information is less accessible than that of listed issuers.

A recent industry request asked the SEC to establish rules for pre-IPO perpetuals and consider eventual U.S. market access. Any domestic launch would require regulatory approval and a structure complying with U.S. derivatives and securities laws.

An IPO would trigger a change in pricing

Kraken intends to change the contracts if OpenAI or Anthropic completes an IPO. At that point, the exchange plans to replace its synthetic reference with an index based on the relevant company’s xStocks product.

Kraken says initial margin, maintenance margin, position limits and funding rules are “expected to change.” The exchange plans to disclose the conversion details before implementing them.

The conversion remains conditional. Neither Kraken contract guarantees that the referenced company will complete an IPO, and the existence of a futures market does not provide investors with an allocation in any future offering.If an IPO does not occur or Kraken cannot obtain reliable pricing, the exchange reserves the right to delist and settle the affected contract. Kraken says it may determine the settlement value under its applicable rules.

A pre-IPO contract’s final synthetic price could also differ materially from the eventual listing price. This gap can produce rapid gains, losses and liquidations when the public market establishes a new reference value.

The issue appeared during the expansion of private-company markets around the SpaceX listing, when synthetic contracts converged toward the public share price only as the IPO supplied a verifiable reference.

After conversion, Kraken expects the products to resemble perpetuals tied to its existing tokenized equities. Those xStocks products are issued separately and backed by listed securities, unlike the current OpenAI and Anthropic contracts.

Kraken has continued expanding that infrastructure. Its xStocks offering now provides tokenized access to hundreds of listed securities, while a recent London Stock Exchange partnership could add major British companies subject to regulatory approval.