On January 25, East 8 Time, Pendle Finance was pointed to on-chain addresses associated with the team, transferring approximately 1.8 million PENDLE in batches through intermediary addresses to the centralized exchange Bybit, with an estimated scale of about $3.61 million based on the price at that time. This batch of tokens was tracked by the market as coming from the Pendle Vesting Wallet, and according to a single source, the holding period lasted up to 3-4 years. The sudden liquidity in the context of Bitcoin spot trading nearing a freezing point and large whales concentrating on "arbitrage" profits has drawn particular attention, amplifying discussions about unlocking expectations, team selling pressure, and liquidity risks.
Path and Unlocking Doubts of 1.8 Million PENDLE
● Transfer Path Analysis: On-chain data shows that the approximately 1.8 million PENDLE did not enter Bybit directly from the suspected team address, but was first transferred out from the address pointed to as the Pendle Vesting Wallet, split through one or more intermediary addresses, and finally aggregated into the Bybit deposit address. This process was completed within January 25, showing a concentrated and tight rhythm, presenting typical on-chain behavior characteristics of "large chips entering the exchange through intermediary addresses."
● Scale and Circulation Comparison: Converted to approximately $3.61 million, this transfer volume is already at the edge of tens of millions of dollars in net inflow for a single transaction. Combined with the recent overall on-chain circulation of PENDLE and the fact that net inflows to exchanges have mainly been small to medium amounts, this single flow is sufficient to "overwhelm" daily capital flows in absolute scale, becoming a prominent variable in the short-term order book and sentiment, with its marginal impact far exceeding that of ordinary retail and medium addresses' intraday operations.
● Token Source Attributes: According to a single monitoring source, the outgoing address was labeled as the Pendle Vesting Wallet, and the related PENDLE is said to be locked and held for up to 3-4 years. This label implies that the market will naturally associate it with the team, early stakeholders, or long-term incentive pools, viewing this batch of tokens as typical "long-term locked chips" liquidity rather than short-term calls from the general secondary market.
● Absence of Official Information: Currently, there has been no public document or contract schedule from Pendle that clearly includes this transfer in a predetermined planned unlocking or pre-disclosed distribution arrangement. Due to the lack of supporting evidence from white paper appendices, official blog posts, or contract event explanations, the outside world can only classify this behavior as a "suspected Vesting-related transfer," without being able to align it with the official roadmap in terms of compliance and rhythm.
Liquidity Amplification Effect Under Bitcoin Trading at Recent Lows
● BTC Trading Shrinkage: Concurrent data indicates that the daily spot trading volume of Bitcoin within major CEXs was only about 14,000 BTC, falling back to near the lowest point since 2022, reflecting a significant cooling of trading activity in the market. Whether from proprietary market making or active trading, overall participation has contracted, leading to thinner order books and reduced depth, thereby increasing price sensitivity to medium and large transactions.
● Prominence of Single Transaction in Tens of Millions: In such an environment of overall spot liquidity tightening, the equivalent $3.61 million PENDLE inflow is naturally interpreted as significant. Compared to regular transfers that are "drowned" in large capital flows during average volume periods, such concentrated inflows of tens of millions of dollars in tokens are sufficient to occupy a central position in on-chain monitoring, capital flow dashboards, and community discussions, becoming a "sample event" for observing capital sentiment.
● Price Elasticity in Low Trading: When the trading of mainstream assets like Bitcoin declines and overall market risk appetite contracts, the order book's ability to withstand pressure also decreases. Potential selling pressure of the same scale may correspond to only slight fluctuations on high trading days, but could lead to more noticeable marginal price changes on low trading days. This liquidity elasticity amplification effect is a crucial logical basis for the market's concern regarding this PENDLE inflow.
Comparison of Whale Profit Taking: PUMP and Pendle Behavioral Distinctions
● PUMP Whale Profit Realization: Around the same time as the Pendle event, on-chain monitoring showed that a PUMP token whale reportedly realized profits of about $3.15 million, subsequently transferring a large amount of PUMP to Binance. This action is widely seen as a typical "profit realization concentrated at leading exchanges after price increases" model, with on-chain paths and profit-loss data closely aligning with the short-cycle arbitrage narrative of speculative whales.
● Behavioral Feature Comparison: From the dimensions of "profit realization" and "concentrated inflow", both the PUMP whale and the large address in this Pendle case exhibit a commonality of massively concentrating chips towards CEXs. However, in the PUMP case, the chips are mostly recognized as low-position accumulation in the secondary market, with profits realized after short-term increases; while the source of Pendle's transfer is pointed to the Vesting Wallet, with chips held for 3-4 years, it is closer to "sudden liquidity of long-term positions," triggering associations with lock-up discipline and unlocking expectations in market narratives.
● Cost, Cycle, and Role Differences: The PUMP whale resembles high-risk speculative capital, with unknown costs, but a short holding period, leaning towards secondary market traders; the Pendle-related address is viewed as a project's early or team-side chip pool, with extremely low costs, long holding periods, and roles closer to builders or long-term stakeholders. This role misalignment leads to the same "inflow to the exchange" being interpreted as reasonable cashing out for the former, while the latter more easily triggers amplified speculation about the project party's attitude and long-term unlocking paths.
On-Chain Transmission of Unlocking Expectations and Selling Pressure Concerns
● Signal Effect of Locked Chip Liquidity: In mainstream industry views, once long-term locked tokens exhibit sudden large outflows, they are often seen as potential signals: either approaching formal unlocking nodes or stakeholders reassessing phase valuations. Regardless of whether actual selling occurs, the path "from cold wallets to exchanges" itself is sufficient for the market to view it as a behavioral statement, amplifying expectations of subsequent selling pressure.
● Framework of Vesting and Secondary Market Associations: The common analytical framework typically maps the unlocking rhythm of Vesting Wallets to the selling pressure curve in the secondary market: when the unlocking rate increases or unexpected outflows rise, analysts will preemptively adjust the potential selling pressure weight in their models for the upcoming period. Therefore, as long as on-chain data shows deviations from the established rhythm of long-term chip flows, even if sales have not been confirmed, the market will actively incorporate it into "possible new supply" to price risk.
● Restraint Under Information Uncertainty: Based on the current public information, the outside world cannot confirm whether this PENDLE transfer belongs to planned unlocking, employee incentive distribution, or merely address restructuring and internal settlement among project-related parties. In the absence of official explanations and more detailed on-chain labels, it is impossible to infer specific motives for reduction, selling plans, and target prices, and it can only be viewed as an unusually large flow that requires continuous tracking.
Sensitivity of Funds Under Ethereum High-Frequency Trading and USDC Contraction
● Ethereum On-Chain Activity: According to a Bitfinex report, the daily transaction volume on the Ethereum network once reached 2.88 million transactions, setting a historical high, indicating that DeFi, on-chain interactions, and other activities continue to maintain high frequency. In a high-frequency trading environment, funds switch more rapidly between different protocols and assets, with reactions to news and on-chain signals becoming more short-term and strategic.
● USDC Destruction and Dollar Tightening: Meanwhile, the USDC Treasury was monitored to destroy 50 million USDC, translating to a significant scale of dollar funds temporarily withdrawn from the on-chain system. This action is seen as a reflection of the phased contraction of off-exchange dollar liquidity at the macro level, indicating a marginal reduction in "dry powder" available for taking on risk assets on-chain, making risk appetite more susceptible to single events.
● Scissors Effect of On-Chain Activity and Dollar Tightening: On one side is the "heat illusion" brought by Ethereum's record trading volume, and on the other side is the tightening of dollar supply reflected by USDC destruction. Under this scissors effect, on-site funds become more sensitive to variables such as team addresses and whale behaviors. High-frequency strategies will quickly amplify the impact of these address movements in the order book, incorporating them into risk control and position factors, thereby further enhancing the amplification effect of large inflow events like Pendle on price and sentiment.
Rational Observations Under Davos Regulatory Discussions
● Magnifying Glass of Compliance Narrative: Currently, the Davos Forum has listed tokenization and regulatory balance as important topics, raising global macro attention on project parties' fund management, unlocking disclosures, and investor protection. In such a discussion atmosphere, any large transfers related to teams or Vesting will be scrutinized under the "compliance and transparency" magnifying glass, and the market will naturally pay more attention to whether they align with established disclosure and governance expectations.
● Emotional Amplification in Weak Liquidity Environment: In the context of Bitcoin spot trading falling to about 14,000 BTC and USDC destruction compressing dollar liquidity, Pendle's concentrated inflow of approximately 1.8 million PENDLE (about $3.61 million) has a particularly obvious emotional amplification effect regarding unlocking and selling pressure. It is not just a simple on-chain transfer but is viewed as a "trigger point of sentiment" under the overlay of multiple macro and micro factors, guiding funds to reassess the rhythm and boundaries of project party fund operations.
● Returning to Verifiable Data: In the absence of more on-chain detail labels, official announcements, and unlocking schedule supplements, this transfer should focus on verifiable facts—time, amount, path, and source labels—while avoiding subjective extensions regarding specific motives for reduction, future price trajectories, and project strategies. Continuously tracking changes in exchange-held tokens, subsequent on-chain flows, and official information updates is a more prudent path to address a single large event in a high-uncertainty environment.
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。
