On February 3rd, East 8 Time, two notable large flows of ETH appeared on-chain simultaneously: first, DBS Bank received 24,898 ETH from market-making institution Wintermute within a week, amounting to approximately $61.34 million at the time; second, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin executed the first sale of a long-planned donation arrangement, selling 493 ETH, worth about $1.16 million. On one side, a traditional major bank is publicly expanding its ETH exposure on-chain, while on the other side, a key figure of the project initiates a reduction in holdings, creating a stark contrast of “institutional buying frenzy vs. founder selling off.” However, the true driver of the emotional swings is often not an instantaneous reversal of Ethereum's fundamentals, but rather the exaggerated chain reaction resulting from the over-interpretation or misinterpretation of fragmented images under high transparency on-chain.
DBS Consumed 24,898 ETH in a Week
● On-chain path and rhythm: According to public on-chain data, DBS Bank has repeatedly received ETH from addresses associated with market-making institution Wintermute through its clearly identified wallet address, accumulating a total of 24,898 ETH over the past week. These transfers were completed in a short time, indicating a highly concentrated and organized operational rhythm, amounting to approximately $61.34 million at current prices, which is quite a remarkable level in large on-chain transfers between institutions.
● Cautious interpretation of average acquisition price: Market estimates suggest that DBS's average cost for this round of ETH acquisition is approximately $2,463 per ETH, based on statistical calculations from a single data source, rather than official disclosures from DBS. This figure can serve as a reference for observing its approximate entry range, but should not be simply regarded as an “official cost line” or stop-loss threshold, to avoid constructing a non-existent narrative of an “institutional defense price band” based on incomplete information.
● Signals of compliance-driven major banks increasing exposure: As an important traditional large bank focused on Asia and emerging markets, DBS's continuous increase in ETH exposure within a compliance framework is seen as a signal of deepening institutional participation. Whether these ETH will be used for custody, product support, or other purposes is currently not publicly disclosed, but it at least indicates that large financial institutions are willing to allocate more space in their balance sheets or business systems to accommodate Ethereum-related assets.
● Relatively aggressive Ethereum allocation posture: Comparing the 24,898 ETH received by DBS in the past week with the recent public actions of mainstream institutions, its weekly absorption scale is equivalent to the quarterly accumulation of many institutions. Research briefs indicate that this scale is about 1.5 times the total amount of 16,384 ETH in Vitalik's donation plan, representing a relatively aggressive pace of Ethereum asset allocation among current institutional participants, highlighting its importance to this asset class.
Vitalik's First Sale of 493 ETH is Just 16
● Restoration of the timeline: On January 30, Vitalik Buterin announced a cross-year ETH donation plan through public channels, with a total scale of 16,384 ETH. Subsequently, this batch of ETH was planned to be concentrated into a multi-signature address, which highly aligns with the announcement content. On February 3rd, East 8 Time, on-chain monitoring showed that this multi-signature address transferred out and sold the first batch of 493 ETH, which is the “first sale” action that gained attention on social media.
● Execution of planned donation budget: Various market news and interpretations from research institutions point to the same judgment—this sale of 493 ETH is part of the previously announced donation budget execution, rather than a temporary selling pressure or emotional cash-out. Research briefs also emphasize that the statement of “part of the planned donation budget” has been cross-verified through multiple sources, suggesting that it is more about a predetermined charitable and public funding plan entering a substantive execution phase than a “founder suddenly dumping.”
● Long-term orientation of public goods funding: Vitalik's publicly announced multi-year donation plan focuses on three areas: privacy protection, decentralized capability building, and open-source security infrastructure. This means that the sold ETH is not being converted into personal wealth but is being reinvested to support the long-term resilience of public goods within the Ethereum and broader crypto ecosystem. Simplistically interpreting this process as “pessimism about Ethereum's prospects” clearly overlooks the long-term commitment and sense of responsibility inherent in the donations themselves.
● Coordination of cautious spending by the foundation and personal donations: In the context of the Ethereum Foundation entering a more cautious spending phase, Vitalik's gradual monetization for donations effectively balances financial stability at the systemic level with the continuity of public funding. On one end, the foundation controls the pace to maintain long-term operational safety, while on the other end, the founder uses personal assets to fill part of the public funding gap. The combination of both creates a robust and sustainable ecological support mechanism, rather than a signal of cooling future expectations.
When Founders Sell Coins and Major Banks Buy
● Contrast in scale: If we only compare the numbers horizontally, the 24,898 ETH received by DBS Bank in the past week is about 1.5 times the total planned donation amount of 16,384 ETH by Vitalik, and is several times the actual first sale volume of 493 ETH. Such a comparison highlights the simultaneous presence of buying and selling forces on the same chain, but also reminds us that focusing solely on one side's actions can easily overlook the reality that the other side is actively absorbing or even over-accumulating.
● Narrative bias of “founder selling = bearish”: In terms of market sentiment, the founder's on-chain coin sales are often instinctively equated with a bearish signal of “not being optimistic about the project's future,” while often neglecting the potential donation attributes, public funding, or liquidity management motives behind it. In Vitalik's case, when the segment of “493 ETH being sold” is detached from the context of years of planning and announcements, it can easily be exaggerated into a temporary sell-off, triggering short-term speculative funds to follow the emotional operation.
● Collision of two narrative frameworks: Traditional institutional accumulation is usually seen as “value endorsement,” often packaged by the media as long-term capital betting on a certain track; while founder reductions can easily be simplified as a signal of “shaken confidence.” When these two narrative frameworks appear together, they can create a significant cognitive conflict in the short term: on one side, compliant major banks like DBS are publicly expanding their ETH exposure, while on the other side, the project's key figure is continuously executing sales on-chain, creating a perception of opposition that far exceeds its actual supply-demand impact.
● Emotional amplification of supply-demand effects: On the surface, the ETH released by Vitalik and the ETH absorbed by DBS partially hedge each other in nominal scale, making the marginal changes in the overall supply-demand structure far less than the panic level presented by social media. In other words, if we place these two main flows on the same chart, they resemble a structural redistribution rather than a single-direction “market crash,” with emotional noise clearly exceeding the net effect of actual selling pressure.
On-chain Transparency Amplifies Misinterpretation and Exposes Opportunities
● Emotional puzzle under transparent data: In today's on-chain environment, any large transfer will be immediately tracked and exposed, placing DBS's concentrated entry and Vitalik's small-scale sale under the spotlight simultaneously. This high transparency should enhance information efficiency, but it also provides a larger stage for emotional interpretations—actions from different subjects and motives are crudely stitched together, easily narrated as a dramatic story of “founder dumping, institutions catching knives.”
● Misinterpretation chain detached from context: When an isolated segment like “the multi-signature address transferred 493 ETH to the exchange” is deliberately or unintentionally cut off from the timeline and announcement background in dissemination, it can be misread from “planned donation budget execution” to “sudden sell-off for cash.” In the secondary market, such misinterpretations often quickly trigger programmatic trading and emotional following, with short-term volatility being continuously self-reinforced until new clarifying information is widely accepted.
● Recognition of behavioral attribute differences: From the on-chain performance perspective, market-making institution rebalancing, long-term bank allocation, personal donation execution, and even project financial management may all appear as the same visual image of “large transfer from one address to another.” The real differences lie in the underlying behavioral attributes and funding intentions: is it short-term liquidity management, or long-term exposure allocation, public goods funding, or profit realization? Judging solely based on transfer quantity and direction often leads to completely opposite conclusions.
● Methodology for interpreting on-chain data: In the face of increasingly dense large capital flows on-chain, investors need a basic methodology: first, extend the time dimension, placing events back on a complete timeline; second, combine public statements with historical behavior patterns to determine whether actions fall within the anticipated range; third, identify the types of subjects and their typical motives; finally, assess whether the magnitude and frequency constitute a structural change. Only by merging the analysis of time, intent, and context can transfer numbers truly possess decision-making value.
From DBS to BRICS Experiment, Ethereum's Institutional Presence
● Regional role and ETH absorption: As an important bank deeply engaged in Asia and emerging markets, DBS's continuous on-chain reception and holding of large amounts of ETH cannot merely be seen as a one-time position adjustment. From a medium to long-term perspective, such actions are more likely to resonate with the digital asset infrastructure layout in its region, such as custody, settlement, or capital market connections, although it is currently insufficient to deduce specific product forms.
● Comparison with BRICS digital currency interconnection: Almost simultaneously with DBS's increase in ETH, the BRICS countries' digital currency interconnection plan is also accelerating, with public information indicating a technical direction more inclined towards permissioned chain routes. On one side, sovereign-level exploration of controllable, closed digital currency infrastructure; on the other side, the Ethereum ecosystem continues to evolve on an open network. The potential interaction space between these two paths in cross-border payments, value storage, and compliance connections is being re-examined by various participants.
● Dual-track promotion elevates institutional-level attention: On one hand, traditional financial institutions are engaging with and allocating ETH under compliance frameworks, incorporating it into their asset and business landscape; on the other hand, sovereign levels are implementing permissioned chain experiments under policy guidance. These two trajectories are advancing in parallel, collectively raising external institutional-level attention to Ethereum's technology and asset forms. Even if they do not directly connect in the short term, Ethereum's “presence” in regulatory and financial discourse systems has significantly increased.
● Presence passively reinforced: Whether it is DBS's continuous increase in ETH exposure or the exploration of digital currency interconnection under the BRICS framework, both objectively push Ethereum as an important reference for value and payment infrastructure to the forefront. Even if experimental projects adopt permissioned chains or other technology stacks, in discussions of cross-chain interoperability, asset mapping, and compliance bridges, Ethereum is almost always included as a comparative coordinate, thus its positioning in the global financial and value network is continuously passively reinforced.
Coexistence of Selling and Buying in the Ethereum Narrative
● Different time scales and role divisions: On one hand, DBS Bank received 24,898 ETH in large amounts within a week, while Vitalik executed the first sale of 493 ETH from the planned donation budget of 16,384 ETH over several years. Simply viewing the two as “bullish versus bearish hedging” is a low-dimensional interpretation; they represent two different time scales and role divisions: one end is compliant institutions making asset and business layouts, while the other end is core developers releasing budgets for public goods and long-term ecological construction.
● Learn to distinguish between the direction of funds and behavioral intent: In an era of high transparency on-chain, the flow of funds is almost exposed in real-time, but intent needs to be interpreted. If investors only focus on “who is buying, who is selling,” while ignoring “why they are buying, why they are selling,” they can easily be led by a single frame of reference, mistakenly viewing planned public funding execution as a systematic reduction in holdings, overlooking the positive value of ongoing construction and public donations for ecological resilience.
● Short-term volatility is just one facet of a long-term story: Looking ahead to the next few years, the deepening participation of institutions and the continuous execution of donation plans at the developer and foundation levels are likely to jointly shape the resilience and evolutionary path of the Ethereum ecosystem. The “short-term selling pressure and major banks building positions” that are amplified by emotions today, when viewed on a longer timeline, resemble a redistribution and reorganization of value networks among different entities, representing a necessary facet in the unfolding of a long-term story rather than a terminal signal of structural turning.
Join our community to discuss and become 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。
