As of the evening of December 24, 2025, the price of Bitcoin has been fluctuating within a narrow range at a high level, while Ethereum continues to show relative weakness. Behind this round of volatility, an on-chain detail has drawn market attention: the on-chain monitoring platform Onchain Lens shows that a wallet address marked as associated with BlackRock transferred 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH to Coinbase, significantly increasing the potential circulating supply on the exchange side. With the U.S. third-quarter real GDP annualized growth rate preliminary value reaching 4.3%, core PCE annualized at 2.9%, gold prices rising 0.51% to 4508.73, setting a new historical high, and a net outflow of approximately $210 million in USDT/USDC on December 24, along with a net outflow of $31 million from the BTC ETF and $71 million from the ETH ETF on December 23, this transfer marked as associated with BlackRock amplifies the market's discussion on the tension between "institutional long-term bullishness and short-term rebalancing." In the short term, it is essential to closely monitor ETF subscriptions and redemptions, net inflows to exchanges, and the correlation changes in Bitcoin's dominance.
Core of the Event
Regarding this on-chain transfer, the first thing to clarify is not sentiment, but data and boundaries. Onchain Lens detected that a wallet marked as a "BlackRock-associated address" transferred 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH to Coinbase. Roughly calculated at current prices, the former has a nominal value close to $200 million, while the latter is in the tens of millions, totaling in the hundreds of millions. In terms of scale, this amount is not an insignificant event for the liquidity of a single exchange on that day, but relative to the overall pool of over $25 billion that BlackRock has absorbed through the Bitcoin ETF, it is more akin to a tactical liquidity adjustment rather than a complete strategic shift.
Two constraints need to be emphasized. First, there may be some error in the on-chain labeling, so the "BlackRock-associated address" can only be understood as "suspected BlackRock custody or related accounts," rather than an absolute confirmation in a judicial sense. Second, the existing information can only confirm that 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH have entered the Coinbase custody system; it cannot directly deduce whether this corresponds to ETF share redemptions, proprietary account operations, or client-entrusted fund flows, nor can it simply be equated to having already or necessarily being sold in the secondary market.
If we place this transfer within a larger funding structure, we can gain a clearer sense of proportion. The average daily spot trading volume of Bitcoin is usually in the tens of billions, and 2,292 BTC accounts for a small percentage of the combined daily trading volume of mainstream exchanges; the 9,976 ETH also represents a single-digit percentage of ETH's daily trading volume. From the perspective of "marginal supply," this deposit is sufficient to amplify volatility within a specific short-term time window, but it is difficult to change the medium to long-term trend based solely on one transaction.
In institutional operational practice, "transferring to a centralized exchange" often means that chips are moving from cold wallets or custody accounts to more liquid venues. Common uses include secondary market reductions, spot hedging, over-the-counter bulk transaction settlements, market-making fund supplementation, structured product settlements, and adjustments to custody structures. The only thing that can be confirmed at this point is that this portion of BTC and ETH has already moved from a "low liquidity environment" to a "high liquidity environment," thus having better conditions for faster conversion into trading volume or hedging positions.
News and Macroeconomic Background
This on-chain transfer did not occur in isolation but is layered on a set of impressive macro data and asset price signals. The U.S. third-quarter real GDP annualized growth rate preliminary value recorded at 4.3%, significantly higher than the market expectation of 3.3%, while the core PCE price index annualized rate was 2.9%, in line with expectations, forming a macro combination of "economic growth exceeding expectations, inflation generally controllable." Meanwhile, gold prices rose 0.51% to 4508.73, setting a new historical high again, indicating that under this macro data structure, traditional safe-haven and anti-inflation funds continue to flow into gold.
In this environment, the "fund allocation game" between crypto assets and gold becomes more tense. On one hand, research institutions like Matrixport pointed out earlier this month that in the current risk-off cycle, gold's performance overall outperforms Bitcoin, suggesting that some conservative funds may prefer to choose traditional assets with lower volatility and a longer history. On the other hand, leading institutions like BlackRock have not exited on-chain assets; instead, they continue to deepen their structural participation in crypto assets through Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs, structured products, and tokenized government bonds (such as Solstice using BlackRock's OUSG as collateral in mid-December).
The news also includes changes in ETF fund flows. According to public data, BlackRock's IBIT Bitcoin ETF has absorbed over $25 billion in inflows in 2025, becoming one of the key vehicles for Wall Street capital's layout in Bitcoin this year. However, in late December, the market began to see consecutive days of net outflows from Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs. For example, on December 23, under a statistical caliber excluding BlackRock's data, the Bitcoin ETF had a net outflow of approximately $31 million, and the Ethereum ETF had a net outflow of approximately $71 million, indicating that marginal funds are no longer flowing in unilaterally.
In the context of the combination of "strong macro data + gold hitting new highs + ETF phase net outflows," the transfer of BTC and ETH to Coinbase from the BlackRock-associated address appears more like a slice of institutional liquidity management and rebalancing actions in the new macro environment, rather than an isolated, emotional single operation.
Funding and On-Chain Cross-Verification
From a funding perspective, this transfer corresponds to recent funding flow data. On-chain data shows that on December 24, mainstream dollar-denominated on-chain tokens experienced a net outflow of approximately $210 million, with USDT seeing a slight inflow of about $9 million, while USDC had a net outflow of about $194 million. USDT and USDC differ in user structure and usage scenarios, with USDC being more commonly used for compliant trading and institutional scenarios; its significant outflow is often interpreted by the market as a potential signal of "some compliant funds reducing positions or flowing back into the dollar system."
From the ETF dimension, Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded multiple net outflows in late December. The net outflows of $31 million and $71 million on December 23, while not extreme values, combined with several days of similar trends, point to a slowdown in marginal buying, or a transition from sustained net inflows to a mid-term state characterized by fluctuations with occasional net outflows. Over a longer time frame, the cumulative inflow of over $25 billion for IBIT throughout the year still establishes the institutional long-term allocation tone for Bitcoin.
Equating "assets from which ETF funds have flowed out" with "wallet addresses transferring to exchanges" would constitute a methodological error, but from the perspective of funding structure, they both point to one fact: compared to the earlier unilateral absorption phase earlier in the year, the current stage sees institutions holding BTC/ETH leaning more towards dynamic management and balanced allocation, rather than indiscriminate linear accumulation.
Historical experience can provide some reference. Over the past year, whenever large institutions or custody-marked addresses have transferred large amounts of BTC or ETH to centralized exchanges, the market often experiences increased volatility in the short term: on one hand, the supply side sees an increase in "potential circulating chips," while on the other hand, market sentiment anticipates "whether to reduce positions." However, the actual results are not always unidirectional downward; many cases show that when the market has already anticipated negative outcomes and the holding structure is not fragile, such transfers may instead be accompanied by "short-term fluctuations after the news lands + continuation of mid-term trends."
From the current volume of 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH, compared to the ETF management pool and daily trading volume, its impact is more likely to manifest in "amplifying an already existing volatility in one direction" rather than single-handedly redefining the price center. The key lies in the next few days: whether the ETF continues to see net outflows or shifts back to net inflows, whether net inflows of BTC/ETH to exchanges continue to expand, and whether USDC continues to see significant net outflows; this combination will determine the real weight of this chip in the market.
Sentiment and Bitcoin Dominance
Changes in sentiment are concentrated in Bitcoin's market share and the focus of market discussions. Public data shows that Bitcoin's market share rose to over 65% in June this year, then fell to about 57% in September, with the current level around 59.27%. Analyst CyrilXBT pointed out that Bitcoin remains dominant and believes that this year, funds have generally been "flowing back to Bitcoin from other crypto assets," rather than completely leaving this asset class.
This aligns with the recent strength of gold, net outflows from Ethereum ETFs, and the fact that some on-chain funds are flowing back into dollar assets: funds are not simply switching between "risk on / risk off," but are undergoing structural migration—within crypto, a higher proportion is gathering towards BTC; at the macro asset level, some relatively conservative funds are increasing their positions in gold and dollar-denominated assets. In such a structure, Bitcoin's dominance remaining close to 60% itself reflects a sentiment that is not extreme, with a risk preference that is neutral but slightly cautious.
The views of KOLs and institutional research also show significant divergence. The bullish side believes that the current flow of funds back to BTC, large net inflows into ETFs this year, and Wall Street's continuous launch of Bitcoin structured products constitute a realistic support for the "digital gold" narrative, and that any short-term expectations of reductions represented by transfers to exchanges are merely creating space for the next upward movement. The cautious side emphasizes that gold continues to hit new highs, USDC sees large net outflows, ETFs experience consecutive net outflows, and this transfer from the BlackRock-associated address to exchanges indicates that "the mindless accumulation phase has ended," with institutions shifting from pursuing expanded Beta to refined management and rotation realization.
Currently, the publicly available futures and leverage data (from the financing rates, funding rates, and open interest sizes of major exchanges) overall appears closer to a "relatively balanced long-short state," without signals of extreme long crowding or high leverage overextension. This means that when events like the transfer from the BlackRock-associated address to exchanges occur, the market is more likely to trend towards "increased volatility, with direction determined by subsequent funding flows and macro data," rather than a unidirectional stampede caused by leverage weakness.
Deep Logic: Long-Term Narrative and Short-Term Rebalancing
To interpret the deeper logic of this event, it is necessary to extend the timeline to the entire year of 2025. BlackRock's CEO has previously emphasized Bitcoin's long-term value in public forums, viewing it as a "digital reserve asset" with supply scarcity attributes; MicroStrategy even proposed earlier this month that "if holding 5% of the total Bitcoin supply, its price could point to $1 million," presenting an extreme bullish logic. These statements and actions collectively construct the grand narrative of "institutions being long-term bullish on Bitcoin."
At the same time, real data is reminding the market that being long-term bullish does not mean avoiding short-term reductions, hedging, or rotation. In late December, Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs recorded several days of net outflows, with a net outflow of $102 million on December 23 ($31 million BTC + $71 million ETH) being just one snapshot; gold reached new highs during the same period, outperforming Bitcoin in the short term; several major Wall Street banks (including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc.) launched Bitcoin structured products exceeding $530 million, incorporating BTC into more complex return and risk management frameworks, rather than just taking a "linear long" position.
In this logic, a more reasonable interpretation is that institutions' positioning of BTC/ETH is upgrading from "high-risk assets in a single direction" to "tools that can assume multiple roles in a portfolio," which naturally requires them to conduct rebalancing and hedging operations at different macro stages, manifested as changes in ETF subscriptions and redemptions, structured product hedging, and similar transfers to exchanges.
Specifically regarding the motivation behind the transfer from the BlackRock-associated address to Coinbase, several common scenarios can be broken down, but they can only remain at the hypothetical level:
First, phase-based reduction or hedging. Against the backdrop of a strengthening gold, adjustments in U.S. Treasury yields and interest rate expectations, some products may choose to sell a portion of BTC/ETH during a liquidity-friendly window or construct hedging positions through spot + derivatives. Transferring to an exchange provides an execution venue for such operations.
Second, structured product and market-making settlement. Wall Street's Bitcoin structured products may require spot delivery or hedging adjustments at expiration or rebalancing, with exchanges being the most convenient price discovery and liquidity pool. A large transfer may correspond to the capital allocation of multiple over-the-counter contracts or structured products.
Third, internal custody or account structure adjustments. As the scale of tokenized government bonds, on-chain fund products, etc., expands, the demand for asset migration between different custodians and sub-accounts is also increasing, sometimes passing through exchange wallets for inter-institutional settlement.
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive; in reality, multiple needs often drive the same on-chain behavior. The key is that there is no logical conflict between the long-term bullish narrative and short-term rebalancing behavior: the former plans for "the allocation direction for the next few years or even longer," while the latter is a dynamic adjustment in response to quarterly changes in returns, risks, and regulatory environments under this overarching direction.
Bull-Bear Game and Verification Indicators
Surrounding this transfer, the collision of bullish and bearish (or more accurately, optimistic and cautious) narratives is becoming increasingly clear. The bullish side emphasizes three pivot points: first, the cumulative inflow of over $25 billion into IBIT in 2025 and Bitcoin's current market dominance of about 59.27%, indicating that institutional allocation and capital concentration still favor BTC; second, the deposit scale of 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH is within a controllable volatility range relative to BlackRock's overall managed assets and Bitcoin's daily trading volume; third, the deep integration of traditional finance and crypto continues to advance, from Bitcoin structured products of $530 million to tokenized government bonds OUSG being used as collateral by DeFi projects, all indicating that institutions are unlikely to simply exit the on-chain asset ecosystem.
The cautious side focuses on marginal signals: first, the consecutive net outflows from BTC/ETH ETFs in late December, combined with the $102 million single-day net outflow on December 23, indicate that marginal new funds are no longer buying unconditionally; second, gold hitting historical highs and overall outperforming BTC makes traditional assets more attractive in the current macro environment, suggesting that Wall Street may be making cross-asset allocation shifts; third, the net outflow of approximately $194 million from USDC coincides closely with the behavior of the "BlackRock-associated address transferring to Coinbase," perhaps indicating that "some institutional funds are attempting to realize profits or reduce risk exposure during high liquidity phases."
From a radiative effect perspective, if the market interprets this event as a "prelude to institutional reductions," two chain reactions may occur in the short term: first, retail and small institutions may follow suit in reducing positions; second, derivatives shorts may attempt to amplify volatility and test bullish support levels. Conversely, if subsequent ETFs return to net inflows and overall BTC/ETH inventories on exchanges do not significantly increase or even decrease, then this transfer appears more like a routine liquidity management operation, with limited impact on trends.
In the next 1-4 weeks, what will truly help the market judge which side, bullish or bearish, is more dominant, are not emotional single-point news items, but three sets of continuous data: daily net subscription and redemption trends of ETFs, net inflows and inventory changes of BTC/ETH on major exchanges, and the total market value and structural changes of dollar-denominated tokens like USDT/USDC.
Market Outlook: Conditional Paths and Key Observations
Looking ahead, it is necessary to overlay the macro, funding, and structural dimensions to construct conditional scenario simulations, rather than providing a single price target.
On the macro level, if subsequent data continues to confirm the combination of "high growth + controllable inflation," with the Federal Reserve maintaining a moderately dovish outlook and gold oscillating at high levels or even slightly correcting, then Bitcoin and Ethereum are expected to continue switching between the dual narratives of "high-risk assets + quasi-safe-haven assets," with institutional demand for their allocation still existing, albeit at a smoother pace. Conversely, if inflation data rises again, and expectations for interest rate hikes or high rates heat up, gold may continue to gain valuation premiums, while BTC/ETH may be more easily priced as "high Beta risk assets," facing pressure during risk preference contractions.
In terms of funding paths, three scenarios can be envisioned:
First, ETF net inflows recover, net inflows of BTC/ETH to exchanges weaken or even turn into net outflows, and the overall market value of USDT/USDC stabilizes or rebounds. In this case, the event of the BlackRock-associated address transferring to Coinbase is more likely to be viewed by the market as a short-term rebalancing, with price fluctuations primarily focused on washing out positions and continuing trends.
Second, ETFs maintain slight net outflows, net inflows to exchanges rise moderately but do not show extreme concentration, and USDC continues to see slight net outflows. In this scenario, the market may enter a neutral oscillation or "slow rise and slow fall" phase, with changes in Bitcoin's dominance determining whether funds consolidate internally within BTC or spread back to Ethereum and other assets.
Third, ETF net outflows amplify and show consecutive increases over several days, with significant increases in BTC/ETH inventories on exchanges, and compliant funds like USDC continue to see large outflows. This combination would constitute a more obvious mid-term risk signal, with prices potentially seeking a new balance range after a short-term volume-driven decline.
On the structural level, if more Wall Street institutions replicate or scale similar "transfers to exchanges" operations in the coming weeks, then short-term volatility on the spot side is likely to increase, and the basis and funding rate curves in the derivatives market will be repriced accordingly. For medium to long-term allocators, this may mean "increased volatility risk per unit time," but it will also provide more space to construct non-linear return/risk combinations through options and structured products.
Considering these factors, the current stage is more suitable for using a set of "monitoring indicators" to replace a single price judgment:
First, ETF subscription and redemption data, focusing on whether BTC/ETH spot ETFs shift from net outflows back to net inflows, and the changes in the proportion of leading products like BlackRock among them.
Second, on-chain data from the exchange dimension, especially the daily net inflows and inventory curves of BTC/ETH on mainstream exchanges, to determine whether "incoming chips are short-term selling pressure or phase-based consolidation chips."
Third, the total market value and relative proportions of USDT and USDC, to assess the balance of compliant and non-compliant funds on-chain, as well as their leading/lagging relationship with price trends.
Fourth, Bitcoin's dominance and relative performance of Ethereum. If dominance continues to approach or even break 60%, it may indicate a decline in market preference for risk assets, with funds more inclined to concentrate on the most liquid and narrative-driven assets; if dominance falls back and ETH and other assets strengthen, it suggests a rebound in risk preference.
Within this framework, the transfer of 2,292 BTC and 9,976 ETH from the BlackRock-associated address to Coinbase is a variable worth noting, but it is just one item in the equation, not the entire answer. For medium to long-term participants, it is more important to recognize the rhythm of institutions between "long-term bullish + short-term rebalancing," rather than being swayed by a single event. The content described in this article is based on publicly available data analysis and does not constitute any form of investment advice.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
