BIS Report Flags Bitcoin On-Chain Transfer Valuation Gap

A new Bank for International Settlements working paper has found that Bitcoin on-chain transfer valuation can diverge by up to a factor of six depending on the measurement method, a discrepancy that undercuts the reliability of the network's headline transfer figures used by analysts, policymakers and index providers to gauge economic activity. The finding sits inside BIS Working Paper No 1377, Hidden by complexity? Measuring stablecoin, crypto and decentralised finance ecosystems, published September 15, 2026 and authored by Timothy Aerts, Ronald Heijmans, Jan Paulick and Violeta Vuletic, according to the BIS research summary. The paper frames the gap as a measurement problem, not a claim about Bitcoin's fair value or exchange trading volume. For related coverage, see Clarity Act Senate Vote to End Debate Fails. The result lands amid a softer market, with Bitcoin trading near $75,395 and down roughly 4.3% over 24 hours as of this run, against a market capitalization near $1.51 trillion, though the paper's conclusions are analytical rather than price-sensitive. For related coverage, see Kamino Names Yieldstreet Co-Founder Michael Weisz CEO. What the BIS report identifies about Bitcoin transfer valuation The central finding is that estimates of Bitcoin on-chain transaction value differ by up to a sixfold factor depending on how change outputs and self-transfers are handled, meaning the same underlying activity can be reported at wildly different totals. For related coverage, see CLARITY Act Senate Procedural Vote: 60-Vote Threshold. Bitcoin on-chain transfer estimates Up to 6× Bitcoin on-chain transaction-value estimates vary by up to a factor of six across measurement approaches, according to BIS Working Paper No 1377. This measures divergence in transfer estimates, not Bitcoin’s price or exchange trading volume.Source: BIS Working Paper No 1377.What the reported valuation gap means The gap is a measurement-uncertainty problem rather than a coverage hole or a single miscalculated figure, since it stems from how outputs are counted rather than from missing data. The authors treat it as evidence that headline transfer totals are approximations shaped by methodological choices. The paper attributes the divergence to Bitcoin's UTXO model, in which transactions consume whole unspent outputs and return change to the sender; counting those change outputs as transfers inflates totals with movements that never leave the sender's control. That mechanic is native to Bitcoin, not an error in any single dataset. How the report evaluates Bitcoin on-chain transfers The study draws on roughly 100 billion records from Mercurius spanning Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tron, though footnote 6 cautions those records include data repeated across processing stages and are not a count of distinct blockchain events or empirical observations.