In the Eastern Eight Time Zone this week, the institution Trend Research has once again amplified its long position in Ethereum by frequently maneuvering between centralized exchanges and DeFi lending protocols, attracting significant market attention. Public information shows that it first purchased approximately 9,939 ETH on Binance, then transferred this batch of assets to Aave V3 as collateral and borrowed about $20 million worth of USDT to further increase its ETH holdings or optimize its capital structure. Prior to this, Trend had accumulated approximately 636,000 ETH, corresponding to a market value of nearly $1.97 billion, representing an extremely large long exposure within a single institution. The current contradiction is particularly sharp: on one side, institutions are leveraging their positions in ETH through borrowing during a high volatility phase, while on the other side, the macro environment of the overall decline in U.S. stocks and crypto assets creates higher margin calls and liquidation pressures when prices undergo significant corrections.
Trading Loop of Leverage Position Expansion
● In terms of specific operational paths, the information disclosed by various media outlets is generally consistent: Trend first bought approximately 9,939 ETH on Binance, corresponding to a nominal amount of about $30.85 million, then withdrew this portion of assets to the blockchain and deposited it into Aave V3 as collateral, subsequently borrowing about $20 million USDT from Aave V3, thus forming a cycle of leverage through "spot ETH collateral—borrowing USDT—continuing to increase ETH."
● In terms of overall scale, Trend currently holds about 636,240 ETH, estimated at around $1.97 billion, placing its position among the top within a single institution. Although its proportion relative to the total market capitalization of ETH, which is in the hundreds of billions, is limited, its impact on marginal liquidity and order book depth cannot be ignored, especially when large transactions are concentrated in a single account, which can amplify short-term volatility.
● The core profit logic of this type of cyclical collateralized lending strategy lies in using the ETH held as collateral under bullish expectations to borrow USDT from protocols like Aave, and then using the borrowed funds to further buy ETH, thereby amplifying exposure and potential returns on ETH while maintaining the same amount of own funds. As long as the increase in ETH exceeds the borrowing rate and capital costs, this strategy will show a higher return on paper.
● It is important to emphasize that the key data and links mentioned above mainly come from cross-reports by several media outlets such as PANews, Jinse Finance, and Planet Daily, as well as public on-chain tracking. Currently, the only relatively certain information is the quantity of this purchase, the scale of borrowing, and the total position. There is still a lack of comprehensive disclosure regarding the historical cost of building positions over a longer period and the details of each borrowing, so all analyses must be conducted cautiously within this verifiable boundary.
Risk Transmission of the Leverage Chain
Regarding the specific collateral ratio and liquidation price settings of Aave V3, the protocol documentation provides a general framework: typically, different assets are assigned different loan-to-value ratios and liquidation thresholds. When the price of collateral assets falls sharply, the borrower's health factor declines, and once it reaches the liquidation line, the protocol will automatically sell the collateral to repay the debt. However, for Trend's order, current public information has not disclosed the exact collateral ratio parameters, liquidation range, and dynamic adjustment strategies, so external parties can only rely on general mechanisms and cannot precisely calculate the specific risk boundaries. In this state of incomplete information, different scenarios of ETH price declines will correspond to completely different risk paths: a mild correction may only mean a decline in the health factor and some additional margin pressure; once the decline is rapid and sustained, it may trigger mass liquidations, forcing Trend to passively sell part or even most of its collateralized ETH, thereby putting selling pressure on the secondary market in a short time. DeFi protocols like Aave play a role in this chain not merely as intermediaries but as amplifiers of risk transmission. When individual large positions are concentrated for liquidation, the protocol layer will release liquidity by selling collateral at a discount, and in extreme cases, it may trigger a liquidity squeeze at the protocol level through cascading liquidations and slippage, potentially involving other high-leverage users as well. Meanwhile, the cost of capital, risk-free return levels, and ETH's own volatility together determine the cost-effectiveness range of this strategy. When mainstream market interest rates and DeFi lending rates rise, Trend needs to achieve excess returns at a higher cost. If ETH's volatility increases and the direction is unfavorable to its long position, this high leverage is more likely to quickly turn from a tool for "amplifying profits" into a source of "amplifying losses."
Institutional Concentration of Holdings and Market Structure
On a more macro level, Trend's large ETH position is just a microcosm of the rising trend of institutional concentration. In recent times, on-chain data has continuously shown that among the top holders of mainstream assets, the proportion of institutions, funds, and crypto-native market makers is increasing, with a large amount of ETH being long-term locked in a few addresses or protocols, resulting in a relative decrease in the circulating supply in the market. This concentration has the effect of amplifying upward trends during bullish cycles, as the elasticity of supply decreases, and new buying from off-exchange funds can easily push prices higher in a thin sell-side depth; on the other hand, when these large addresses begin to reduce their positions or are forced to liquidate, the selling pressure can be released in a concentrated manner in a short time, making the speed and magnitude of price declines appear more severe. If a single or few institutions encounter liquidation under high leverage, the impact path often does not remain limited to the spot market; liquidation selling will depress spot prices, triggering long position reductions and forced liquidations in perpetual contracts and futures markets, further amplifying volatility in the derivatives market. At the same time, the decline in the value of collateral assets in the lending market will lower the overall health factor, potentially triggering more accounts to be liquidated, forming a cross-market chain reaction. Looking back at past phases of large institutions or funds concentrating on reducing their ETH holdings, prices often undergo deeper retracements and longer consolidation periods to digest the process of capital redistribution. Therefore, in the context of institutions like Trend concentrating their holdings, investors increasingly need to pay attention to the relationship between changes in the concentration of top holdings and the magnitude of price retracements.
Counter-Trend Leverage in a Declining Environment
Recently, crypto assets have shown a high positive correlation with high-risk sectors of the U.S. stock market, and the macro-level decline in risk appetite has led mainstream coins, including BTC, to generally give back previous gains, with a growing consensus in the market around the narrative of "correlated declines." In such an environment, Trend's choice to amplify its ETH position through borrowing essentially bets on a future turning point in the macro environment and fundamentals: first, it expects that macro interest rates and liquidity conditions will tend to ease in the medium to long term, and risk assets as a whole are likely to regain favor; second, it believes that the fundamental narrative of ETH itself—such as the recovery of on-chain activity, fee structure, deflation expectations, and supply contraction mechanisms—is sufficient to support its outperformance over other risk assets in a longer cycle. From an institutional perspective, ETH is not just a trading target but also a foundational asset and equity carrier of the public chain ecosystem. Its position in tracks like DeFi, NFTs, and Rollups makes some institutions willing to counter-trend increase their positions during market downturns, attempting to lock in long-term allocations at lower costs. However, if macro risks continue to be released or risk appetite further cools, this counter-trend leverage strategy may shift from an idealized path of "buying the dip" to the reality of "passive deleveraging." Forced position reductions and liquidations not only depress ETH prices but may also impact a broader ecosystem of derivatives and lending, ultimately transforming a single institution's proactive choice into a passive burden on the entire market.
The Divide Between Traditional Leverage and Crypto-Native Leverage
In terms of implementation paths, leverage in the traditional financial system relies more on margin trading, repurchase agreements, structured products, and other tools, often requiring completion through brokers, banks, or over-the-counter counterparties, with processes constrained by strict contractual arrangements and credit reviews. In contrast, DeFi collateralized lending allows for real-time settlement on-chain through smart contracts, where users only need to deposit assets into the protocol to borrow funds within the allowed collateral ratio, with significantly lower costs for combinations and migrations between different assets and chains. Meanwhile, traditional institutions must operate within regulatory frameworks and internal risk control constraints, with explicit or implicit limits on leverage multiples, asset allocation ratios, and concentration levels. Risk management departments also have more detailed monitoring and stress testing processes regarding liquidity, counterparty risk, and market risk. While this system reduces the flexibility of leverage utilization, it also somewhat mitigates systemic amplification effects under extreme events. Crypto-native institutions can quickly leverage and adjust positions in a multi-chain environment through protocols like Aave, with low thresholds, fast speeds, and transparent information, but this may also allow them to bypass traditional regulatory oversight, potentially making them a key part of the "high-leverage domino" in extreme market conditions. From the perspective of regulation and systemic risk, Trend's large-scale high-leverage behavior is likely to become a focal point in policy discussions in the future. On one hand, regulators need to assess its impact on the internal stability of the crypto market; on the other hand, in the context of deepening links between crypto and traditional finance, they must also guard against such on-chain leverage indirectly transmitting to the broader financial system through institutional balance sheets.
Continuous Observation Behind the Winning Hand
In summary, the high-leverage position that Trend is currently building around ETH shows a high sensitivity to ETH's medium- to long-term performance on the profit side. Once the market moves upward, the amplified long exposure will bring nominal returns far exceeding those of holding spot. However, on the risk side, its sensitivity to ETH price corrections, rising capital costs, and triggered liquidation mechanisms is also significantly amplified. In the absence of complete disclosure of collateral ratios and liquidation ranges, the actual safety boundary of this position remains uncertain, making continuous tracking of liquidation risks and changes in capital costs particularly necessary. For market participants wishing to understand this strategy, several key indicators are worth monitoring over the long term: the price volatility and direction of ETH, changes in health factors related to ETH in the Aave protocol and peak liquidation volumes, the concentration of holdings in large on-chain addresses (especially institutional addresses), and the on-chain paths of large transfers and borrowing operations. These signals can reveal the tension level of the leverage chain from different dimensions. For ordinary investors, the more important insight is to recognize the significant differences between their own capital size and risk tolerance compared to institutions, and not to simply mimic high-leverage cyclical lending strategies while ignoring the "amplified penalties" of liquidation mechanisms during extreme volatility. In the future, to further refine the analysis of strategies like those of Trend, more key information needs to be disclosed and tracked, including specific collateral ratio settings, liquidation threshold ranges, and the evolution of borrowing paths over longer time dimensions, in order to more comprehensively assess their systemic impact in the crypto market.
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。
