On the morning of February 6, 2026, East 8 Time, BTC on HTX briefly fell below $65,000, hitting a low of $64,996.03, with a 24-hour decline of up to 8.31%. This sudden deep correction instantly dragged the entire market into a high-pressure chamber. At the same time, Trend Research, an institution under Yi Lihua, was detected on-chain to have deposited approximately 20,000 ETH into Binance and suspected of cumulatively selling 47,000 ETH within about 6 hours, with a nominal value close to $89.29 million, becoming one of the largest "visible players" in the market. In such an extreme drop close to six sigma, how institutions completed self-rescue through large-scale deleveraging and, in the process, reshaped market sentiment and price trajectories became the most dissectible question in this storm.

Six Sigma Level Drop: Who is the Market Liquidating

● Market Performance: The long bearish candle on February 6 broke the market's previous optimistic expectations for BTC's "high-level consolidation." BTC broke through the $65,000 mark from above, reporting a low of $64,996.03, with a 24-hour decline of 8.31%. This was not just a severe pullback on the daily chart but also a stress test for the entire leverage system, with forced liquidations, position reductions, and margin calls occurring in a short time.

● Extremity Characterization: Former FTX community partner Benson Sun compared this drop to approximately -5.65 standard deviations (σ), which is statistically an "extremely unlikely" tail event. From a six sigma perspective, such a drop far exceeds the normal volatility range, forcing all leveraged participants to reassess their risk exposure; some were passively liquidated by the market, while others chose to proactively withdraw.

● Long and Short Cycle Contrast: In stark contrast to the short-term drop, Strategy CEO Phong Le stated that BTC needs to drop to $8,000 and maintain that level for 5-6 years to truly shake solvency. This statement emphasizes the long-term safety margin of assets from a macro perspective, but the reality is telling the market: in a high-leverage structure, even if the "survival line" is far from being reached, short-term fluctuations are enough to breach the margin safety net.

● Pressure Sequence: When prices plummet at nearly six sigma speed, who will be forced to adjust first? It is often not the long-term unleveraged holders but those institutions and large players that have layered borrowing, derivatives, and on-chain collateral. They need to respond to the pressures of margin and liquidation lines before their positions become "fatal" on paper, which also lays the groundwork for Trend's subsequent large-scale deleveraging.

Six Hours, Forty-Seven Thousand: Trend's Self-Rescue Window

● Behavioral Trajectory: According to on-chain monitoring data, on February 6, Trend Research's related address deposited approximately 20,000 ETH into Binance and suspected of cumulatively selling 47,000 ETH within about 6 hours. This was not a slow structural reallocation but a highly concentrated, tightly-paced selling window, with the exchange deposit and suspected sales highly overlapping on the timeline, exhibiting typical characteristics of "rapid position contraction."

● Scale Perception: Based on the nominal value provided in the briefing, this approximately 47,000 ETH corresponds to about $89.29 million in selling volume, which is enough to reshape the flow of a trading day in a normal market environment, especially against the backdrop of BTC's 8.31% flash crash. For investors accustomed to "invisible institutional liquidity," this time it felt like a thick black liquidity curve was placed directly on the screen.

● Time Relevance: The briefing pointed out that Trend's concentrated transfers had a significant time correlation with the day's ETH price drop. When BTC first lost key price levels and the overall market risk appetite collapsed, ETH's decline intertwined with Trend's deleveraging actions: whether institutions were self-rescuing in extreme conditions or whether their selling pressure further exacerbated the decline became the focus of public debate.

● Incomplete Picture: It is important to emphasize that the currently available public data only covers part of the deposit and suspected selling records. Whether Trend's specific positions in various lending protocols or the overall ETH holdings and final deleveraging scale still have significant information gaps. Therefore, the market can view this action as a high-visibility risk adjustment, but it cannot deduce its complete balance sheet, nor can it simply assert that it has "fully exited" or is "still deeply trapped."

Liquidation Range 1509 to 1800: Leverage Being Pushed by Prices

● Range Scale: After multi-source cross-validation, the research briefing indicated that the latest liquidation range falls between $1,509 and $1,800, which is not precise to a single liquidation point but more like a "minefield" that the market repeatedly approaches, where stepping on the line will trigger a chain reaction. For institutions holding high-leverage ETH longs, every downward fluctuation pushes them closer to this range's threshold.

● Approaching Process: One can imagine a simple picture: ETH prices are like an elevator descending along stairs; with each price level breached, it gets closer to the upper edge of $1,800. When sentiment is at its worst and liquidity is weakest, institutions often have to make the most reluctant choice—selling chips to secure overall position safety, effectively being forced to act as sellers at the most challenging time to find buyers.

● Proactive Deleveraging Logic: For Trend, actively deleveraging before prices fall into the $1,509-$1,800 range is essentially an attempt to complete self-repair before systemic liquidation occurs. If passively liquidated, it would mean selling more chips at the worst market price, potentially triggering more liquidation lines; while reducing positions in advance, although it also brings selling pressure, it offers the opportunity to lock in loss limits at higher price ranges.

● Chain Reaction: More broadly, Trend is not the only long positioned at this range's threshold. Other high-leverage participants face similar forced liquidation risks in comparable liquidation zones. Once prices touch and cross this range, forced liquidation orders will be swept out by the system in one go, creating a cycle of "liquidation crash—price drops further—more liquidations." Trend's choice is merely one of the few that is most clearly seen in this collective game.

On-Chain Sniper Scope: Every Step of Trend is Magnified

● Public Focus: As the market evolved on February 6, several Chinese media outlets and on-chain analysis accounts began to continuously track every transfer from Trend's related addresses. Analysts like @ai_9684xtpa visualized the deposit, transfer, and selling paths, almost creating a "full network monitoring" atmosphere, where any new transaction was immediately screenshot, interpreted, and disseminated.

● Transparency Amplifier: On-chain data is originally a neutral record, but under the secondary processing of media and social platforms, every transfer by institutions is magnified into a "signal." When deposits enter centralized exchanges like Binance, the market instinctively interprets it as an impending sale; over time, the label of "Trend = seller" becomes solidified in the narrative, even if some operations may merely be risk hedging or position reallocation.

● Self-Fulfilling Expectations: Once the market generally believes that a certain institution is undergoing large-scale deleveraging, sentiment will preemptively self-fulfill. Spot and derivatives holders will rush to reduce positions and hedge, gradually thinning liquidity, so any real sell orders will cause a greater price impact on a more fragile market. At this point, every confirmed sale by Trend will be seen as another exacerbation of existing panic.

● Transparency Paradox: This high level of transparency enhances the market's efficiency in supervising leverage risks, making "hidden warehouse explosions" harder to go unnoticed; but on the other hand, at critical moments, transparency acts like a magnifying glass, amplifying localized risk actions into triggers for systemic panic. For institutions that are deleveraging, every self-rescue operation is completed under the spotlight, and any misstep could trigger a broader stampede.

On One Side is Deleveraging, on the Other is Meme Frenzy

● Contrasting Market: Just as BTC plummeted, ETH came under pressure, and institutions were busy squeezing out leverage during the same period, a Meme token Buttcoin on the Solana chain recorded a 36% increase within 24 hours. Mainstream assets completed risk repricing with a long bearish candle, while small-cap Memes staged a "heaven-defying" rise in the eye of the storm, forming an almost absurd market contrast.

● Doomsday Carnival: While serious funds were forced to deal with margin, liquidation lines, and risk control indicators, some short-term funds wandering on-chain chose to gamble on volatility in the Meme sector. In their view, the crash of mainstream assets represents "the end is near," and it is also the last carnival moment to reap huge profits, with the sharp rise of small-cap Memes resembling a carnival party held on the edge of the abyss.

● Distorted Risk Pricing: This phenomenon directly disrupts the traditional logic of risk pricing—as systemic risk rises, it should push up risk premiums and suppress leverage, yet it triggers higher multiples of speculative activity in localized sectors. The liquidity of mainstream assets is used to fill gaps, while the liquidity in the Meme track is used to amplify bets, serious capital is forced to defend, while aggressive funds maximize their volatility exposure at the most inopportune moments.

● Multi-Narrative Pull: This also confirms a harsh reality: in extreme market conditions, the market is never a single logic execution venue but a battlefield where multiple narratives are simultaneously pulling. On one side, institutions like Trend are actively deleveraging for survival, while on the other side, Memes like Buttcoin amplify short-term greed; beneath the same candlestick, rationality and irrationality coexist and exacerbate each other's volatility.

From This Major Liquidation, Looking at the Preparations Before the Next Storm

The large-scale ETH deleveraging completed by Trend Research around February 6 is essentially a passive response to the six sigma level extreme volatility and the $1,509-$1,800 liquidation pressure, but it also serves as an extreme risk management exercise in practice. In the process of being pushed step by step toward the "minefield" by prices, choosing to sell early and narrow the leverage range is a way to exchange greater pain in the present for the possibility of not being dragged into a deeper abyss by systemic liquidation in the future.

At the same time, this event also signifies a new normal: under the combined effects of on-chain transparency and media amplification, institutional risk adjustments are no longer quietly completed bookkeeping operations in the background, but publicly staged and real-time interpreted market events. Every transfer, every deposit will be labeled and pieced into the narrative, making institutions not just participants but also "actors" being observed.

Looking ahead to the subsequent cycle, those institutions that can truly survive must find a narrower and more precarious balance between the returns brought by high leverage and the tail risk of liquidation: they need to utilize leverage to enhance capital efficiency while having enough flexibility to self-rescue on extreme days like February 6, 2026, without being forcibly exited by the market. This means more precise management of liquidation prices, more conservative leverage multiples, and a more honest estimation of tail risks.

Finally, it is important to remind that the current market judgment of "Trend is undergoing large-scale deleveraging" is more based on existing on-chain data and partial deposit and suspected selling records during certain time periods. The direction indicated by these signals is generally clear, but the scale and endpoint still need to be continuously validated with new data. In the absence of complete position disclosures and authoritative statements, any deductions about its overall holdings, unrealized gains and losses, or even survival lines should be approached with sufficient caution.

Join our community to discuss and become 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。