Why Forbes Doesn’t Count Satoshi Nakamoto as a Billionaire—And Why That Matters

One of the biggest mysteries in finance is not just who Satoshi Nakamoto is—it’s why the anonymous creator of Bitcoin, who sits on one of the largest personal fortunes in history, doesn’t appear on any billionaire rankings.

Forbes, the publication that made “The World’s Billionaires” list a cultural touchstone, has quietly drawn a line in the sand—and it may say more about them than it does about Satoshi Nakamoto.

Forbes’ Billionaire Rankings Cling to Old Rules of Identity and Paperwork

As of this writing, Bitcoin is trading for $110,302. Therefore, Satoshi Nakamoto’s dormant stash of 1.1 million BTC is worth more than $121 billion, almost enough to rival the fortunes of Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault.

Bitcoin (BTC) Price Performance. Source:

Yet, Satoshi’s name is absent from Forbes’ billionaire rankings. The reason?

“Forbes does not include Satoshi Nakamoto on our Billionaire rankings because we have not been able to verify whether he or she is a living person, or one person vs. a collective group of people,” the magazine told BeInCrypto.

That explanation reveals the central flaw in how wealth is measured today. In an age where assets can be provably tracked on-chain, Forbes clings to a framework rooted in identity, legal structures, and corporate filings.

Satoshi is not excluded because the wealth isn’t real. Rather, because the wealth does not fit the story Forbes is used to telling.

Satoshi’s Ghost Fortune Exposes the Cracks Amid the Identity Trap

Forbes is not anti-crypto. Its rankings regularly include exchange founders such as Changpeng Zhao (CZ), token billionaires like Justin Sun, and institutional players.

“Forbes factors in known crypto holdings in all wealth valuations. Forbes treats crypto like any other asset: If a person owns a crypto business, we value the business. If he or she has personal crypto holdings, we value those based on their market prices,” the magazine added.

However, Forbes’ methodology is still tethered to a 20th-century assumption, where wealth must be tied to a face and a filing cabinet.

Offshore trusts, shell companies, and anonymous corporate structures do not prevent billionaires from being ranked because there is ultimately a legal entity to which they are tied.

With Satoshi, there is no name, passport, or paper trail; only a set of keys on a blockchain. The assets are more transparent than most fortunes in the Forbes list, yet somehow, they are treated as less legitimate.

Previous attempts to reveal the identity of the pseudonymous Bitcoin creator have flopped. This includes theories from an HBO documentary, which proved very controversial. Individuals like Nick Szabo, Peter Todd, and Craig Wright also presented as likely candidates.

Others also front Twitter founder Jack Dorsey as Satoshi Nakamoto, but all these remain theories at best, with no material evidence to support the claim.

Justified or Outdated? Experts Debate Forbes’ Stance

Not everyone believes Forbes is wrong. Bryan Trepanier, Founder & President of On-Demand Trading, argues that exclusion is simply common sense.

“It is justified. An anonymous figure with dormant wallets cannot be fairly compared to an individual who actively exercises wealth,” Trepanier told BeInCrypto.

According to Trepanier, a better approach would be for Forbes to create a list of the largest wallets and their holdings. He says this would give recognition without misrepresenting ownership.

For Trepanier, the fact that Satoshi’s wallets have been frozen in time for more than a decade undermines the claim that this is usable wealth.

“Wealth isn’t just about what is held, it’s about what is exercised. Unless and until those coins move, Satoshi’s holdings are more a symbol of crypto’s origins than an active fortune in the real world,” he stated.

That argument resonates with those who see billionaire rankings as more about economic power than raw account balances.

Yet others see Forbes’ position as increasingly untenable. Mete Al, Co-founder of ICB Labs, says the refusal to acknowledge Satoshi reflects a blind spot.

“Forbes is still working within the framework of traditional finance (TradFi), where wealth is tied to a legal entity, a name, or a bank account. But blockchain has changed that reality. Excluding Satoshi highlights the gap between how media outlets measure wealth and how value is actually stored and proven today,” Mete Al told BeInCrypto.

Mete Al points out the irony that many billionaires hide wealth behind opaque legal structures and offshore accounts, yet still make the Forbes list.

By contrast, Satoshi’s coins are visible to anyone with a blockchain explorer.

“Why should Satoshi be treated differently?” he posed.

Elsewhere, Ray Youssef, CEO of NoOnes, says that Forbes’ methodology goes beyond missing the point.

According to Youssef, Forbes’ approach risks irrelevance because wealth today is no longer just tied to traditionally recognized assets

“With the rise of the digital age and decentralized economy, wealth can now exist pseudonymously on-chain and be fully verifiable. Satoshi Nakamoto’s story illustrates the fundamental change that the decentralized era brought into existence,” Youssef said in a statement to BeInCrypto.

Youssef warns that by refusing to adapt, legacy outlets risk ceding credibility to Web3-native media that already track digital wealth with nuance.

Measuring Power in the Digital Era

Satoshi’s absence also conceals just how much influence pseudonymous wealth already exerts. A single transaction from Nakamoto’s wallets would dominate headlines and rattle markets in a way few corporate announcements could.

According to Mete Al, ignoring them doesn’t make their influence disappear. Rather, it blinds mainstream audiences to how much power crypto represents today.

Web3 expert and BestChange ambassador Nikita Zuborev echoed the sentiment in a statement to BeInCrypto.

“Forbes’ choice makes sense if you stick to the traditional rules: their billionaire lists are all about identifiable individuals, and with Satoshi, we just don’t know if it’s one person or a whole team. But it also shows how old-school ideas of wealth don’t always match the digital world,” Zuborev explained.

So what comes next? Even skeptics like Trepanier suggest Forbes could publish supplemental lists of the largest wallets and balances.

Some propose sidestepping the identity issue while acknowledging the scale of digital wealth.

Beyond satisfying crypto’s demands for recognition, that hybrid approach would bring transparency to a growing asset class and help the mainstream understand just how much value circulates outside traditional systems.

“They either evolve or risk new institutions coming in to create rivaling methodologies that would factor in the growing nature of wealth in the digital era,” Youssef warned.

Why It Matters

At first glance, Satoshi’s exclusion seems like a quirk of methodology. However, looking closer, it becomes a symbol of the battle between two definitions of wealth.

Forbes’ rankings are built on identity, documentation, and legacy finance. Bitcoin and Satoshi’s ghost fortune are built on math, transparency, and the absence of identity.

By leaving Nakamoto off the list, Forbes goes beyond making a technical call, signaling that the rules of the old world still define the billionaire class.

Whether that stance holds is an open question as crypto reshapes financial reality.

Nevertheless, ignoring Satoshi does not make them disappear. Rather, it only highlights the limits of billionaire rankings in an age when one of the richest entities alive may remain forever nameless.