Pools Geographic Estimate
Pool dominance aggregated by HQ country (USA, China, Global, Czech, UK, Japan). Disclaimer: pool HQ inferred - actual hashrate location may differ.
What is it?
Stacked decomposition of the hash power share of the 14 main pools aggregated by pool HQ (headquarters) country. The buckets are USA (Foundry, MaraPool, SpiderPool, Luxor, UltimusPool), China (Antpool, F2Pool, ViaBTC, Poolin, BWPool), Global (Binance Pool), Czech (BraiinsPool), UK (CKPool), Japan (SBI Crypto). The HQ country is inferred from the pool's declared origin - not the actual location of miners connecting.
How to read
Read the relative share of each country bucket: a growing USA reflects the post-2021 relocation of hash power to North America. A rising China share would indicate a return of Asian hash power. The Czech, UK, Japan buckets capture structural niche actors. The stacked sum approaches 95% of total hash power (the missing 5% are uncounted long-tail pools).
Key zones
A USA concentration around 40-50% reflects the post-2021 environment. A rise above 60% would accentuate geographic centralisation. A China share sustainedly above 30% would mark a structural return. The Czech, UK, Japan buckets typically oscillate around 1-5% each.
What to observe
Rotations between buckets are the most telling transitions: a stable USA but a shrinking China indicates that other jurisdictions absorb hash power. Watch major regulatory announcements (US, Russia, UAE, El Salvador) which can trigger entire pool migrations.
Historical context
Before 2021, mining geographic concentration was largely Asian with a structural Chinese dominance (Sichuan for seasonal hydroelectricity, Xinjiang for cheap coal). The mining ban decreed in May-June 2021 triggered the largest hash power migration in Bitcoin history. The relocated hash power mainly took refuge in North America (Texas, Georgia) and Kazakhstan, redrawing the geographic map within months.
Expert notes
The geographic estimate inferred from the pool HQ is necessarily imperfect - pools operate globally and miners connect from any jurisdiction. For a complementary view, third-party methodologies based on network latency analysis or local regulatory data provide more direct estimates of real geographic hashrate.
Common mistakes to avoid
Reading this chart as the actual physical location of hash power is a common mistake. The pool HQ just classifies the operator's governance and regulatory jurisdiction, not the geographic location of ASICs. A US-based pool can very well receive 80% of its hash power from Asia or Europe.
Programmatic access
REST API
curl -sS \
'https://api.trinityinsights.io/api/v1/onchain/pools-geographic-estimate/history?days=90' \
-H 'X-API-Key: $TRINITY_API_KEY'MCP server
{
"tool": "get_chart_value",
"metric_id": "pools-geographic-estimate",
"timeframe": "1y"
}Required tier: pro. See the pricing grid for the tier list and the MCP documentation for multi-client configuration.
Related metrics
Institutional disclaimer
Trinity Insights is an educational and analytical tool. The metric above does not constitute investment advice. Trinity Insights is not a Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) registered under MiCA Regulation (EU) 2023/1114. See the full disclaimer.