Do freshly mined Bitcoin cost more?

[Italian Panic]

I have come across different costs depending on whether the bitcoins are freshly mined rather than older bitcoins or satoshis that have changed hands several times (too much hop).
One of the issues in the crypto sector stems from AML checks that are triggered when tokens are transferred via centralised exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase and Kraken, which analyse the funds' history and trace their origin to assess how legitimate they are. The problem is that you might receive bitcoins or fractions of bitcoins for a service you've provided, and some of those outputs might have a poor AML score, which would then trigger a whole process to prove that they do not have an illicit origin.
Browsing the web (not on the clearnet), I have found sites where they sell miners Bitcoin at a slightly higher price, between 5% and 10%.

What do you think? What would be a correct high percentage?

[naturelover]

We or other long-time crypto space people know that when we deposit on any cex platform, it is their job to first trace where the coins we are sending to them come from, and they know if it comes from hackers, ransomware and others, and once they detect that it comes from a bad source, they will hold it or freeze the assets at once.

And you are right that this can happen to people who are not aware or do not know that the only thing they are transacting is that the origin of the coins turns out to be from a bad source, then in the end these innocent people are the ones who will have problems due to the address given to them turns out to be dirty.

[ferrddy]

That's a really insightful breakdown. You've hit on the core tension in the crypto ecosystem: the difference between the intrinsic value of the asset and the transactional cost of doing business within that ecosystem.

Here's my take on your points:

On the Cost Structures
Your observation about age and hop count is spot on. Older Bitcoin (or well-established Satoshis) often have a more stable floor price because they carry more verifiable history, making them less susceptible to the volatility of "freshly mined" coins. This is less about a premium and more about a risk-adjusted price.

On the AML Problem
The AML friction you described is the real killer for small service providers. Those high percentages (5% to 10%) the miners charge are essentially the market pricing for liquidity, convenience, and risk mitigation.

When a miner sells BTC at a premium, they are charging for three things:

Speed/Convenience: Offering a seamless, fast off-ramp for the customer.
Liquidity Premium: Guaranteeing that the BTC sold is liquid and easily transferable to a major exchange.
Risk Insurance: Insuring themselves against the AML headache. If a service provider is selling to someone with a murky history, the miner assumes some of that risk, and the premium is factored in.
What is the "Correct" Percentage?
If your goal is to find a "correct" rate where the price feels more aligned with the base value (what you suggested—the same price as an older one), then the correct percentage is zero. The price should, ideally, be the same as the established market rate for that specific coin.

However, if you are looking for a sustainable margin for the miner to cover operational costs and the risk of the transaction, a figure between 3% and 5% is often a more "correct" sweet spot.

If it's 5% to 10%: That suggests the miner is heavily factoring in the liquidity/convenience premium and/or the AML risk mitigation.
If it's 3% to 5%: That feels more like a fairer reflection of the base asset value, suggesting the miner is operating more purely on the underlying commodity price rather than charging heavily for the service of selling it.