Bhutan’s latest Bitcoin transfers have revived one of the market’s more unusual sovereign-BTC questions: is the kingdom still mining, or is it now mainly selling from an older reserve? Arkham said wallets tied to Bhutan moved another $44.44 million in BTC, bringing total transfers from those addresses to $72.3 million over 24 hours, while noting that the last Bhutan-linked inflow above $100,000 was seen more than a year ago.
That detail is what turned a routine wallet movement into a bigger story. If the identified wallets are no longer receiving fresh mining rewards, the obvious interpretation is that Bhutan’s state-backed mining operation may have slowed or stopped. Arkham pushed that line directly, asking whether Bhutan had halted mining after highlighting repeated outbound transfers and the long gap in visible inflows.
The selling pattern itself is not new. Arkham had already flagged another $27.8 million BTC transfer a day earlier and said Bhutan had also moved $11 million last week, with roughly that same amount sent to an address previously used in similar transactions. According to Arkham, Bhutan has periodically sold portions of its Bitcoin in clips of roughly $5 million to $10 million, with a particularly active phase around mid-to-late September 2025.
HAS BHUTAN STOPPED MINING BITCOIN?
Bhutan just moved another $44.44M BTC out of its accounts. Bhutan has moved $72.3M BTC out of its addresses in the past 24 hours.
Bhutan’s last >$100K BTC inflow was over 1 year ago. Has Bhutan stopped mining Bitcoin? https://t.co/IhcGDMRH0t pic.twitter.com/qvQuKXXoaU
— Arkham (@arkham) March 18, 2026
Has Bhutan Really Stopped Bitcoin Mining?
Still, the on-chain evidence does not settle the question on its own. Bhutan kept its mining activity secret for years. It only became public through investigations tied to the bankruptcies of Celsius and BlockFi. That history leaves open a more cautious interpretation: DHI may still be operating under the radar and routing fresh mining rewards to new, as-yet unidentified wallets. In other words, the absence of inflows to the known addresses does not necessarily prove the mining has ended.
Another possible explanation is seasonality. Bhutan’s mining model is tightly linked to hydropower, and the country’s electricity production is highly dependent on weather patterns and the time of year. During the winter months, lower rainfall and reduced water levels can lead to a marked decline in power generation. In the summer, by contrast, Bhutan produces large energy surpluses. In that case, the absence of fresh inflows could reflect a seasonal drop in the amount of surplus electricity available for mining.
That distinction matters because Bhutan has never presented Bitcoin as a short-term trade. In a public statement tied to Gelephu Mindfulness City, the country said, “Bitcoin is not being held as an object of speculation. It is being set aside with purpose. This is not an experiment. It is a commitment.” Those lines suggested a strategic, state-level view of Bitcoin tied to Bhutan’s broader economic and energy model rather than opportunistic treasury management.
Even so, the recent flows raise legitimate questions about what that strategy now looks like in practice. If Bhutan is still mining, it may simply be doing so through wallets that are no longer publicly linked to the operation. If it is not, then the current transfers look less like portfolio rotation and more like continued reserve monetization from a stockpile accumulated over earlier years of hydro-powered mining.
The deeper point is not just whether Bhutan sold another tranche of BTC. It is that one of the world’s most closely watched sovereign Bitcoin holders has become harder to read at exactly the moment its visible wallets show distribution, not accumulation. Until new inflows appear or new wallet infrastructure is identified, the question Arkham raised will remain open: not whether Bhutan is moving Bitcoin, but whether it is still producing it.
At press time, BTC traded at $70,394.
