On January 22, 2026, Beijing time, when on-chain intelligence tools captured a transfer of 13,650,000 MNT from a long-term holding address to Bybit, market sentiment was quickly ignited. According to data sources like Onchain Lens, this address had held the relevant tokens for about three years, and this action broke a long period of silence. Based on the market conditions on that day, this transfer was estimated to be worth approximately 12.2 million USD. In the absence of complete market capitalization and circulation data for MNT, this can still be viewed as a significant one-time movement of tokens for a single asset. The primary questions surrounding this large transfer focused on two points: is this a potential precursor to significant selling pressure, or is it a routine allocation of tokens for liquidity, market making, or internal settlement needs? The following will attempt to dissect this event based on on-chain data, label reliability, and historical cases, rather than providing an emotional single conclusion.
A One-Time Deposit of 13… After Three Years of Silence
● On-chain traces show that the associated address has been relatively silent since completing its early accumulation about three years ago, lacking high-frequency large outbound transfer records during this period, which aligns closely with the profile of a typical medium to long-term holder. According to tools like Onchain Lens and SpotOnChain, this address has not frequently interacted with centralized exchanges over a long time frame. The large transfer to Bybit stands out significantly in its complete holding period, breaking the previous on-chain characteristic of "buying and holding for a long time."
● The scale of the deposit to Bybit was 13,650,000 MNT, estimated to be worth about 12.2 million USD at the time of the event. This volume far exceeds the typical transfer amounts of retail investors or small to medium institutions. Comparing the frequency of changes in this address over the past three years, similar levels of external transfers are extremely rare, almost qualifying as a one-time "major operation" in the historical trajectory of this address. Because of the previous scarcity of changes, this deposit possesses strong statistical abnormality, enough to be quickly amplified and tracked by on-chain monitoring tools and secondary market participants.
● In the absence of complete market capitalization and precise circulation data for MNT, it is not possible to rigorously provide an exact proportion of this token relative to the overall supply, but a judgment can be made from a trading perspective. If we compare the daily trading volume of MNT on mainstream exchanges, a concentration of tens of millions of dollars entering a single platform would theoretically significantly elevate the available trading token volume on that platform, also amplifying the potential impact of sell orders on price in a short time. However, the specific degree of impact still depends on whether it actually enters the order book and the distribution of transactions, and cannot be directly inferred from the deposit size alone.
Errors and…
● The currently widely cited "Mirana associated address" claim is primarily based on on-chain analysis and intelligence tool label classifications, rather than from official signatures or public statements confirming Mirana Ventures. Sources like Rhythm and Foresight have indicated that no on-chain signatures or announcement documents have been found that can directly prove legal ownership, so it can only be regarded as a "high probability association" rather than an "officially confirmed entity address." In the absence of official endorsement, equating this address simply with Mirana's official holdings presents a methodological bias.
● Institutions like Rhythm have repeatedly reminded that on-chain labels are essentially inferences based on historical trading relationships, publicly available investment information, and clustering algorithms, which naturally carry risks of mislabeling or delayed updates. For institutional addresses, labeling errors may lead to misjudgments about actual holding structures and trading motivations, especially when VC or market-making entities are involved in complex funding routes, making it difficult for a single label to fully depict true ownership. Therefore, when interpreting any wallet behavior marked with "Mirana" or "VC," it is essential to be aware of the boundaries of label data and not treat it as infallible authoritative certification.
● Even if the identity of the entity has not been fully confirmed, the market still tends to view actions from such suspected VC or institutional addresses as important signals, as they typically possess longer-term project information and larger token holdings. From a behavioral finance perspective, the movement of large holders' funds is often interpreted as a reassessment of the risk-reward ratio in the medium to short term. Regardless of whether this interpretation is accurate, it will shape emotional expectations in advance. In other words, the uncertainty of the labels does not diminish the narrative impact of this transfer itself; it merely reminds participants to exercise caution and conditionality when using the term "Mirana address."
Does a Large Deposit to an Exchange Equate to Incoming Selling Pressure?
● Logically, there is a clear distinction between "on-chain transfers to exchanges" and "actual sell orders," with various potential use cases in between. Large token deposits into exchanges may serve purposes beyond direct selling in the spot market, such as providing liquidity to the order book, engaging in leverage or derivatives hedging, participating in market making, conducting over-the-counter settlements, or even merely acting as a more flexible asset management transit point. Therefore, simply observing the deposit records on-chain is insufficient to infer that this behavior equates to a substantial release of selling pressure.
● Historically, many cases of "large deposits from long-term holders into exchanges" often amplify market panic in the short term: prices may experience severe fluctuations within hours to days after the news spreads, especially when liquidity is thinner. However, further review reveals that not all large deposits correspond to subsequent significant concentrated sell-offs; some merely change the custody and trading scenarios of the tokens without forming sustained sell orders in the public order book. In other words, the market's initial reaction is usually to amplify expectations, while actual trading behavior may be far more neutral or complex than the emotions presented.
● Regarding this Bybit deposit event, due to the lack of detailed order book and transaction data from the platform, it is currently impossible to verify whether the 13,650,000 MNT has been sold in batches or to what extent. Therefore, the most prudent statement is to view it as a potential selling pressure factor: it increases the accessibility of tokens available for sale but does not yet constitute factual evidence of "a large-scale sell-off that has already occurred." Any narrative equating this deposit directly with a definitive market crash is making inferences beyond the existing data boundaries.
The Possibility of Liquidity Management and Internal Token Transfers
● From the general practice of liquidity management in exchanges, a concentration of large token deposits does not necessarily lead to public market sell-offs. Mainstream platforms often need to maintain relatively smooth buy-sell depth and spread control, so they may transfer assets through proprietary or partnered market makers to dynamically adjust the position distribution across different accounts and markets. This "liquidity replenishment" is manifested on-chain as significant large deposits, but its purpose may merely be to enhance order thickness or hedge risks, and it does not directly translate into one-sided selling pressure.
● For project teams or early investors, concentrating a certain proportion of tokens on leading platforms is also a common liquidity and collaboration path. Some tokens may be used to provide depth for market-making accounts, some as collateral to expand the derivatives market, and others may complete non-public transactions through over-the-counter structured products or institutional orders. In such scenarios, a single large deposit on-chain resembles an internal token transfer and liquidity allocation, and its impact on public market prices can only be accurately quantified through subsequent order placements and transaction structures.
● Regarding external claims about "Bybit's routine operations" or "internal fund allocation," the current public information largely comes from unverified second-hand reports or speculation from individual KOLs, and cannot be regarded as a directly credible factual basis. For rigorous consideration, such claims need to be clearly defined as "pending verification information," which can be included as one possible path in scenario analysis but should not be treated as a premise in arguments. In other words, this article maintains a neutral stance when discussing the possibilities of internal token transfers and liquidity management, without presupposing the specific motivations of the exchange.
VC Holding Changes and MNT Pricing…
● Mirana Ventures, as a well-known venture capital institution in the crypto field, has publicly participated in investments related to the MNT ecosystem, so any changes in funds associated with it will be highly scrutinized by the market. VCs often participate in financing stages such as seed rounds and private placements in the early stages of projects, holding a considerable amount of tokens, and their holding periods and unlocking rhythms are usually deeply tied to the project's growth path. This leads the market to tend to view the increase or decrease in VC holdings and asset transfers as a kind of "vote" on their outlook and risk preferences for the project.
● From the supply side, large holders' tokens entering exchanges technically raise the upper limit of potentially circulating tokens, thereby altering short- to medium-term supply-demand balance expectations; from the confidence side, if the market subjectively interprets this as a "prelude to VC selling," it often raises risk premiums and lowers the valuation levels investors are willing to accept. Therefore, even in the absence of confirmation of true motivations, such changes may still weaken price anchoring in the short term and increase volatility ranges. Every large action from a VC address will be examined within the framework of "whether to reassess project value."
● For ordinary investors, a more rational response is to incorporate this address change into a broader analytical dimension: on one hand, continuously track the subsequent on-chain flow, splitting, and whether this 13,650,000 MNT appears to be transferred again to other platforms or cold wallets; on the other hand, combine it with the fundamental progress of MNT, ecological development, and macro environment, rather than making emotional decisions based solely on a single address's behavior. Viewing events through probabilities and scenarios, rather than explaining prices through stories and conspiracies, can help maintain a relatively clear trading framework in a high-noise environment.
An Observation Checklist After an Opaque Large Transfer
The transfer of 13,650,000 MNT worth approximately 12.2 million USD to Bybit is better defined under the current data constraints as an action to "increase the available liquidity at the exchange while also increasing potential selling pressure," rather than a large-scale definitive sell-off that has already occurred. On-chain records clearly present the fact of large tokens flowing from a long-term holding address to a centralized platform, but do not extend to confirmations at the order book and transaction levels.
Key observation items to focus on next include: first, whether there are significant large transfers flowing out from Bybit on-chain subsequently, or if this batch of tokens remains long-term at the exchange; second, if conditions allow, more granular transaction distribution, active/passive selling situations, and changes in order depth over different time windows; third, whether the project team, Mirana Ventures, and Bybit provide any form of explanation or implicit response to this event to narrow the information asymmetry.
In the absence of complete confirmation of the entity's identity and direct evidence of motivations, caution should still be exercised regarding the "Mirana label," and a conditional mindset should be maintained towards all narratives about selling, reducing holdings, or internal settlements. For investors, a more feasible approach is to construct a probability-based thinking framework in an environment of incomplete information: viewing this transfer as a risk factor among various scenarios, absorbing uncertainty through position management and scenario planning, rather than making heavy bets around a single storyline.
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。
