Key Takeaways: 912,296.82 ETH tokens are permanently inaccessible, according to public blockchain records. BlackRock’s ETHA led ETF inflows, bringing total U.S. Ethereum ETF inflows to $5.5B. Ethereum’s self-custody model offers no built-in recovery for user-side errors. A recent GitHub post published by Coinbase Head of Product Conor Grogan has documented over 912,000 ETH that have been permanently lost due to user error or protocol failures, representing more than 0.76% of Ethereum’s circulating supply. Grogan compiled wallet addresses from public records, contract audits, and community-sourced data. The analysis excludes unknown lost-key events, covering only ETH that is provably inaccessible. A Total of 912,296.82 ETH Lost “To be clear, this $3.4B+ number significantly undershoots the actual lost/inaccessible ETH amount,” Grogan wrote. “It just covers instances where Ethereum is locked forever.” “For example, it doesn’t cover all lost private keys or things like Genesis wallets that have been forgotten,” said Grogan. Based on my research, a minimum of 913,111 Ethereum is lost forever due to user error. This is 0.76%+ of ETH supply, or $3.43 billion in lost funds If we include EIP‑1559 burned ETH (5.3M), then >5% of all ETH ever made ($23.42B) have been permanently destroyed pic.twitter.com/IlTduN7Kzx — Conor (@jconorgrogan) July 20, 2025 Major losses include 306,000 ETH trapped in a Parity multisig contract once used by the Web3 Foundation, 60,000 ETH from the failed QuadrigaCX exchange, and 11,500 ETH lost by the Akutars NFT project due to a contract error. Grogan also identified 25,000 ETH manually sent to a known burn address. The dataset incorporates findings from researcher Johannes, who documented over 12,000 ETH lost due to wallet typos, and credits contributions from Tayvano and J6sp5r. Grogan said future updates will expand the dataset to cover situations such as North Korean losses and cases involving unrecoverable private keys. Ethereum ETFs Grow with Record Inflows Ethereum ETFs have drawn over $5.5 billion in total inflows, with $3.3 billion added since mid-April. The renewed demand follows a rise in Ethereum basis yield and stronger futures activity. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) led with $489 million in inflows on July 17, its highest on record. ETHA brought in $1.25 billion across five sessions, raising BlackRock’s ETH ETF holdings to $6.94 billion. U.S. Ethereum ETFs collectively saw $726.74 million in daily inflows on July 17, beating the previous record. Fidelity’s FETH and Grayscale’s mini trust added $113.31 million and $54.18 million, respectively. The persistence of lost Ethereum indicates the protocol’s strict finality and lack of recourse for user-side errors. Unlike traditional financial systems that offer chargebacks or custodial recovery, Ethereum’s self-custody model makes asset recovery functionally impossible once certain errors occur. Institutional exposure now grows through vehicles like ETFs, making user education and wallet safety increasingly relevant. Preventing future losses will likely depend more on improved tooling and standards than changes to the protocol itself. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Can lost ETH ever be recovered through upgrades or forks? No. Ethereum’s consensus design does not allow selective access changes without a hard fork, which would require broad network coordination and is highly unlikely. Could other chains implement loss-recovery tools without compromising decentralization? Some newer chains experiment with programmable recovery functions or guardian models, but these involve tradeoffs in user control and system trust assumptions. How is ETH loss accounted for in monetary policy models or supply tracking? Lost ETH is not officially removed from circulating supply metrics, but is often considered when estimating effective supply and scarcity. Do ETFs holding ETH face specific technical risks from these loss patterns? While ETFs use custodians to minimize risk, operational security failures in staking, slashing, or private key management could still create large-scale losses.Key Takeaways: 912,296.82 ETH tokens are permanently inaccessible, according to public blockchain records. BlackRock’s ETHA led ETF inflows, bringing total U.S. Ethereum ETF inflows to $5.5B. Ethereum’s self-custody model offers no built-in recovery for user-side errors. A recent GitHub post published by Coinbase Head of Product Conor Grogan has documented over 912,000 ETH that have been permanently lost due to user error or protocol failures, representing more than 0.76% of Ethereum’s circulating supply. Grogan compiled wallet addresses from public records, contract audits, and community-sourced data. The analysis excludes unknown lost-key events, covering only ETH that is provably inaccessible. A Total of 912,296.82 ETH Lost “To be clear, this $3.4B+ number significantly undershoots the actual lost/inaccessible ETH amount,” Grogan wrote. “It just covers instances where Ethereum is locked forever.” “For example, it doesn’t cover all lost private keys or things like Genesis wallets that have been forgotten,” said Grogan. Based on my research, a minimum of 913,111 Ethereum is lost forever due to user error. This is 0.76%+ of ETH supply, or $3.43 billion in lost funds If we include EIP‑1559 burned ETH (5.3M), then >5% of all ETH ever made ($23.42B) have been permanently destroyed pic.twitter.com/IlTduN7Kzx — Conor (@jconorgrogan) July 20, 2025 Major losses include 306,000 ETH trapped in a Parity multisig contract once used by the Web3 Foundation, 60,000 ETH from the failed QuadrigaCX exchange, and 11,500 ETH lost by the Akutars NFT project due to a contract error. Grogan also identified 25,000 ETH manually sent to a known burn address. The dataset incorporates findings from researcher Johannes, who documented over 12,000 ETH lost due to wallet typos, and credits contributions from Tayvano and J6sp5r. Grogan said future updates will expand the dataset to cover situations such as North Korean losses and cases involving unrecoverable private keys. Ethereum ETFs Grow with Record Inflows Ethereum ETFs have drawn over $5.5 billion in total inflows, with $3.3 billion added since mid-April. The renewed demand follows a rise in Ethereum basis yield and stronger futures activity. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) led with $489 million in inflows on July 17, its highest on record. ETHA brought in $1.25 billion across five sessions, raising BlackRock’s ETH ETF holdings to $6.94 billion. U.S. Ethereum ETFs collectively saw $726.74 million in daily inflows on July 17, beating the previous record. Fidelity’s FETH and Grayscale’s mini trust added $113.31 million and $54.18 million, respectively. The persistence of lost Ethereum indicates the protocol’s strict finality and lack of recourse for user-side errors. Unlike traditional financial systems that offer chargebacks or custodial recovery, Ethereum’s self-custody model makes asset recovery functionally impossible once certain errors occur. Institutional exposure now grows through vehicles like ETFs, making user education and wallet safety increasingly relevant. Preventing future losses will likely depend more on improved tooling and standards than changes to the protocol itself. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Can lost ETH ever be recovered through upgrades or forks? No. Ethereum’s consensus design does not allow selective access changes without a hard fork, which would require broad network coordination and is highly unlikely. Could other chains implement loss-recovery tools without compromising decentralization? Some newer chains experiment with programmable recovery functions or guardian models, but these involve tradeoffs in user control and system trust assumptions. How is ETH loss accounted for in monetary policy models or supply tracking? Lost ETH is not officially removed from circulating supply metrics, but is often considered when estimating effective supply and scarcity. Do ETFs holding ETH face specific technical risks from these loss patterns? While ETFs use custodians to minimize risk, operational security failures in staking, slashing, or private key management could still create large-scale losses.