In the Eastern Eight Time Zone this week, multiple active whale addresses on Ethereum and Bitcoin have been monitored for concentrated leveraged long positions and frequent portfolio adjustments, attracting ongoing market attention. Among them, a single address holds approximately $630 million worth of ETH long positions, which has already shown an overall unrealized loss, indicating that the current price range has become a key battleground for bulls and bears, rather than a tentative entry point. Meanwhile, institutions like Grayscale have transferred large amounts of ETH and BTC to trading platforms, coupled with on-chain risk events such as security vulnerabilities in Truebit within the Ethereum ecosystem, amplifying the withdrawal and liquidity pressure faced by ETH. This article will outline the core dynamics of the current price game of Ethereum from three dimensions: visible on-chain whale holding data, leveraged risk exposure, and cross-asset sentiment flow.
Concentrated Long Positions and Liquidation Pressure
● The whale address pension-usdt.eth has recently been monitored opening an ETH long position of approximately $62 million on a contract platform, with a leverage ratio of about 3 times. This single position is equivalent to the overall risk exposure of many medium-sized institutions, demonstrating its betting strength and capital concentration in the current price range.
● A wallet labeled as “BTC OG Insider Whale” holds about $630 million in ETH long positions on the contract side, with an average entry price around $3147. Currently, it has an unrealized loss of about $5.42 million, indicating that the current price is slightly below its main entry range, and each downward price test directly amplifies its unrealized loss pressure.
● Comprehensive on-chain monitoring and market feedback show that this “BTC OG Insider Whale” and related addresses have a total nominal scale of ETH long positions of about $790 million, but have already shown significant unrealized losses, regarded as a typical sample of “heavy participation but short-term pressure” in leveraged longs, indirectly confirming that ETH is not a light position trial but a strong battleground after deep capital involvement.
● From the overall profit and loss status, some early long positions are still in unrealized profit, but the newly added capital that concentrated on raising leverage above $3000 has gradually been trapped, indicating that there is a certain passive support below as it approaches the main cost area of the whales. Once the price approaches or breaks above the average price, the whales' pressure to release by reducing positions and liquidating will gradually become apparent, forming a temporary ceiling on the upward space. Although it is difficult to quantify specific points, the structural characteristics of “supporting funds below and concentrated liquidation above” are already relatively clear.
High-Leverage Game of Liquidation and BTC Reduction
● In contrast to the whales still holding large ETH long positions, there are wallets referred to as “Lightning Reverse” that have chosen to close their ETH long positions in a short time, incurring a loss of about $2.536 million, while simultaneously reducing their BTC long positions. This sequence of actions indicates a preference for actively shrinking leverage exposure during amplified volatility rather than continuing to add margin and hold firm.
● Considering the current market with leverage ranging from 3 times to 20 times, it can be seen that when volatility sharply increases, high-leverage funds face not linear risks but exponential magnification of margin pressure, forced liquidation risks, and profit-loss elasticity: a price pullback of the same magnitude means controllable unrealized losses for a 3x position, while for a 20x position, it may directly approach or trigger the passive liquidation threshold, forcing holders to make quick decisions on margin replenishment or direct liquidation.
● Those still holding large ETH longs choose to endure volatility in an unrealized loss state, implying a higher risk tolerance and stronger expectations for future rebounds; while wallets that have already stopped losses and exited hedge against tail risks with real losses. The behavioral differentiation between the two depicts a clear difference in risk preference, capital costs, and future market judgments within the whale group.
● There is also a case of a whale liquidating 378 BTC with a total loss of about $7.48 million. When observed alongside the “Lightning Reverse” action of reducing BTC long positions, it reveals the systemic fragility of high-leverage cross-asset combinations during periods of severe volatility: when ETH and BTC weaken simultaneously or their correlation rises, any sharp pullback in one direction could trigger the entire margin chain of the combination, forcing holders to deleverage across multiple assets, thereby amplifying the chain reaction across the market.
Grayscale's Large Transfers and Whale Leverage Misalignment
● At the institutional level, Grayscale has been monitored transferring about 20,572 ETH to Coinbase Prime, estimated at about $64.06 million at the time, and 171.856 BTC, corresponding to about $15.42 million. Such movements of funds from custody wallets to trading platforms are typically interpreted by the market as one of the potential selling pressure signals. Although it does not directly equate to immediate selling, it undoubtedly adds a layer of implicit pressure to market sentiment.
● In stark contrast, individual or non-traditional institutional whales are actively leveraging long positions in ETH and BTC through contract products on-chain, reflecting a proactive accumulation of funds at the derivatives level. The transfer of assets by institutions like Grayscale to trading platforms and the private whales amplifying leverage on the contract side represent two different approaches: one leans towards “releasing liquidity and preparing for potential trades,” while the other leans towards “amplifying risk exposure and enhancing directional bets.” The misalignment of these two types of capital behavior in time and direction exacerbates market uncertainty about future trends.
● From a possible motivation perspective, Grayscale's large transfer actions may stem from multiple needs such as product redemptions, portfolio rebalancing, or liquidity arrangements, which do not completely align with the motivations of individual whales betting on price rebounds. Due to the difficulty of reconstructing the true trading direction from on-chain data, it is not appropriate to speculate that Grayscale will necessarily sell or increase holdings. What can be confirmed is that one side is maneuvering chips for potential trades, while the other is amplifying price exposure. The interplay and mismatch of these two in the time dimension constitute an important part of the current market structure.
● On the order book level, once large transfers convert into actual market sell-offs, they will exert pressure on the spot market depth, amplifying slippage and price volatility in a short time; while ETH long positions are highly concentrated in a few whale addresses, meaning that once the price deviates downward from these concentrated entry areas, the whales may be forced to reduce positions or hedge, potentially amplifying volatility in a relatively limited liquidity environment, thus forming a complex dynamic of “institutions releasing chips and whales absorbing high leverage.”
Truebit Theft and Emotional Amplification Effect
The Truebit verification protocol has exposed a security vulnerability, resulting in approximately 8535 ETH being stolen, with estimated losses of about $26.6 million at the time of the incident, leading to a sharp price drop of its ecosystem token TRU. As part of the Ethereum ecosystem, such security events, while not directly affecting the underlying ETH protocol itself, generate a chain reaction in terms of sentiment and risk management across the entire ecosystem. On one hand, the confidence of Truebit-related project parties and early participants is undermined, increasing the demand for hedging and risk aversion. Some funds may choose to reduce holdings of ecosystem tokens or hedge related risks, indirectly applying certain selling pressure on ETH or suppressing the willingness to buy new. On the other hand, if the large amount of stolen ETH in the hands of hackers is gradually sold off or split into the market through various channels, it will create a temporary shock to spot liquidity, pushing short-term selling pressure up. Correspondingly, if project parties or affected funds choose to short or hedge in the derivatives market, it may further increase the short positions on the contract side. When juxtaposing the Truebit incident with the whales' behavior of leveraging ETH, it can be observed that some market participants are simultaneously bearing the confidence blow from the security event at the ecosystem level while continuing to bet on ETH rebounds at the price level. This combination of “fundamental sentiment being undermined + leveraged funds increasing” can easily create emotional resonance when negative news is concentrated, but due to the lack of precise timelines, it is impossible and inappropriate to simply attribute a direct causal relationship between the two.
Risk Migration of High Leverage Across Assets
● On the BTC side, a wallet labeled as “Former Strategy Counterparty Whale” has taken a long position of 1510.89 BTC with about 15 times leverage, with a nominal scale of about $137 million, currently showing an unrealized profit of about $666,000. The high leverage and large nominal amount of this position make it highly sensitive to price fluctuations, with every percentage point of price change corresponding to amplified profit-loss elasticity.
● In contrast, the “Lightning Reverse” whale has chosen to reduce BTC long positions, and previously, a whale liquidated 378 BTC at once, realizing a loss of about $7.48 million. This indicates that under the same market environment, different participants have clearly differentiated risk orientations on BTC: some choose to leverage profits through volatility, while others opt to actively reduce exposure before severe fluctuations.
● In the two main lines of ETH and BTC, high-leverage funds are often not deployed in isolation but are maneuvered between the two varieties through multi-asset combinations: when unrealized losses on the ETH side expand, some funds may choose to continue adding long positions on the BTC side to hedge sentiment, or release margin by reducing BTC to support ETH positions. From a local perspective, it seems to complete risk hedging, but from a systemic level, it merely migrates risk from one asset to another without truly disappearing.
● Once ETH whales face greater withdrawal pressure, especially as they approach areas that may trigger forced liquidation or margin calls, they may likely reduce BTC or other assets to free up margin to maintain the existence of ETH long positions. This operation of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” between different assets will manifest in the market as synchronized volatility across multiple assets and increased correlation. When multiple large participants simultaneously adopt similar strategies, the price linkage between ETH and BTC may be further amplified, intensifying systemic fluctuations in the entire crypto market in a short time.
High-Pressure Zone Between Withdrawal and Liquidation
Considering the concentrated ETH long positions of approximately $790 million held by whales, the large transfers of assets by institutions like Grayscale to trading platforms, and the emotional and liquidity shocks brought by the Truebit security incident, it can be seen that ETH is currently in a phase of high pressure resonating with high-leverage positions and liquidity pressure. Once the price continues to deviate from the cost band of concentrated whale positions, the space for the downward support and upward liquidation pressure to compete will be compressed. In the short term, the most critical variable is whether ETH can stabilize and stop falling near this concentrated entry range. If the price cannot hold this area, it may trigger a series of passive reductions, failed margin calls, and a domino effect of forced liquidations, causing the already fragile high-leverage structure to “collapse” in a short time. It is important to emphasize that on-chain data can clearly present the scale of positions, approximate leverage ranges, and current unrealized profits and losses, but cannot answer questions about the source of funds, underlying strategies, and true intentions. Simplistically viewing whale behavior as “insider guidance” carries significant risks. A more rational judgment is that the current range resembles a battleground for high-leverage capital games and capital structure rearrangements, rather than a confirmed unilateral phase of trends. In such an environment, traders should focus on objective indicators such as changes in leverage ratios, distribution of liquidation levels, and movements of large on-chain transfers, rather than attempting to derive deterministic trend conclusions from the actions of individual whale addresses.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
