On January 3 and January 26, in the East 8 Time Zone, a single whale address 0x455…433E completed two large-scale rotations around ETH and WBTC, attracting significant market attention. On January 3, this address exchanged 14,145.93 WETH for 492.16 WBTC at a ratio of 0.03479 ETH/BTC. Subsequently, on January 26, it exchanged 578.66 WBTC back for 17,706.74 WETH at a ratio of 0.03268 ETH/BTC, completing a full two-way cycle in just six weeks. On-chain data indicates that it currently holds approximately 17,707 WETH + 195.49 WBTC, with total assets around $67.38 million. The net increase in ETH holdings is about 6.45%, which stands in stark contrast to the sentiment of some institutions that continue to be bullish on BTC, especially as Bitcoin has fallen below key technical levels and the technical outlook has weakened.
Two Exchanges in Six Weeks: The Whale Manipulates the Exchange Rate
● Operation Path Overview: On January 3, this address exchanged 14,145.93 WETH for 492.16 WBTC at an exchange rate of 0.03479 ETH/BTC, corresponding to a market value of about $44.195 million, effectively switching from the ETH side to the WBTC side. On January 26, it expanded its WBTC holdings to 578.66 WBTC at an exchange rate of 0.03268 ETH/BTC and exchanged it all back for 17,706.74 WETH, corresponding to a market value of about $50.33 million, completing a closed loop from WBTC back to WETH.
● Exchange Rate and Price Difference: The ETH/BTC ratio for the two exchanges changed from 0.03479 to 0.03268, indicating a difference of about 6%, which means that during this period, ETH weakened relative to BTC. The whale first bought WBTC at a higher ETH/BTC ratio and then exchanged it back for more WETH at a lower ratio, essentially trading around the relative price difference of ETH/BTC to lock in relative profit within the range.
● Net Increase in ETH and Asset Growth: According to on-chain statistics, after this round of two-way rotation, the net increase in ETH holdings for this address is about 6.45%, with the amount of WETH significantly elevated from pre-rotation levels. Combined with the two scales of about $44.195 million on January 3 and about $50.33 million on January 26, the current total holdings are 17,707 WETH + 195.49 WBTC, with total assets around $67.38 million. This not only results in an increase in the number of ETH but also raises the overall dollar-denominated asset scale, reflecting the asset amplification effect under the relative exchange rate game.
● Strictly Adhering to On-Chain Verifiable Boundaries: The above analysis is entirely based on objectively verifiable on-chain data such as address behavior, exchange ratios, and asset balances. No speculation is made regarding the true identity, institutional background, or subjective trading motives of this address, nor does it extend to undisclosed internal information, ensuring that the discussion remains strictly within the realm of traceable and verifiable facts.
Bitcoin Breaks Below the 21-Week Moving Average Technical Pressure
● Price and Moving Average Background: On January 26, Bitcoin's price briefly fell below $87,000, marking a 10.9% decline from the monthly high, and it failed to regain the 21-week moving average near $96,044. This trend indicates that BTC experienced significant pullback pressure during the month, with the short- to medium-term trend tilting further towards technical weakness.
● Significance of the 21-Week Moving Average as a Barometer: According to Matrixport's technical perspective, the 21-week moving average is considered one of the key indicators for observing the switching of bullish and bearish forces in Bitcoin. When the price remains above it, the bullish trend prevails; once it is lost and not regained, it often signals a cooling of bullish sentiment, with bearish or defensive funds gradually gaining the upper hand. In the current environment where BTC hovers below the 21-week moving average, technical analysts are more inclined to believe that the risk of a pullback has not been fully released.
● Technical Weakness Depiction: Starting from the 10.9% decline from the monthly high, it can be seen that BTC has undergone a significant price adjustment in a short time, compounded by the loss of the key weekly support at $96,044, resulting in a clearly weak technical structure. Market trading behavior within this range is more focused on profit-taking, reducing positions, and risk hedging, rather than mindlessly increasing positions.
● WBTC Exposure and Overlapping Time Points: Notably, the whale's key operation to reduce WBTC exposure occurred precisely when BTC fell below $87,000 on January 26 and had not yet regained the 21-week moving average. At this juncture, it exchanged 578.66 WBTC for 17,706.74 WETH. From an on-chain behavior perspective, this aligns with the intensifying short-term technical pressure on BTC and the corresponding reduction in risk appetite in the market environment. Although we cannot infer its true intentions from this, the temporal overlap provides a valuable reference for observing the response of funds.
Technical Bearishness and Bullish Sentiment Discrepancy
● Institutional "Undervaluation" Perception: According to a survey by Coinbase targeting institutional clients, about 70% of institutional investors believe that Bitcoin is undervalued in the $85,000-$95,000 range. This data reflects that a significant proportion of institutions still view the current price as an opportunity for medium- to long-term positioning. In their cognitive framework, BTC has not reached the valuation bubble range at this price level and has potential room for further upward movement.
● Contrasting Reverse Positioning: Compared to the overall bullish sentiment among institutions, the whale address chose to exchange WBTC for more ETH during the period of technical weakness in BTC, effectively reducing its BTC exposure and increasing its ETH weight in relative positioning. This behavior of reverse positioning in an environment where "institutions verbally favor BTC" shows a clear divergence between different types of funds regarding the same asset and highlights that large on-chain funds are not simply following mainstream sentiment.
● Relative Price Difference Rather Than Absolute Price: From the differences in the two ETH/BTC exchange rates of 0.03479 and 0.03268, this round of operations appears more like trading the relative strength between ETH and BTC rather than making directional bets on the absolute price of a single asset. The whale may be more focused on the cost-effectiveness changes of ETH relative to BTC, choosing to replenish ETH at a lower exchange rate after BTC is under pressure and ETH has relatively retreated, thus gaining additional profits when the ETH/BTC ratio rises in the future.
● Uncertainty of Sentiment and Funds: Whether it is the "BTC undervalued" viewpoint of about 70% of institutions in the Coinbase survey or the whale's action of exchanging WBTC for ETH, neither constitutes a definitive guide to future price trends but can only serve as supplementary clues for observing sentiment and fund flows. Investors need to recognize that different participants have vastly different risk appetites, investment cycles, and constraints, leading to entirely different operational conclusions even in the same market environment.
Comparison with the OG Whale with an $80 Million Unrealized Loss
● Background Differences of OG Whales: The "BTC OG insider whale" widely discussed in the market holds a large Bitcoin position and has incurred an unrealized loss of about $80 million during this round of volatility. Its characteristics include holding a large amount of coins early on, with long-term inactivity or low-frequency adjustments, which is in stark contrast to the strategy of the address 0x455…433E that frequently rotates around ETH-BTC. The former resembles a typical ultra-long-term holder, with short-term fluctuations having limited impact on its operational rhythm.
● Passive Pressure vs. Active Rotation: The OG whale's attitude during price pullbacks is more akin to passively enduring market value fluctuations, choosing not to make significant adjustments, even in the face of tens of millions in unrealized losses, showing no clear defensive reduction. In contrast, the address participating in the ETH-BTC rotation completed a two-way switch within six weeks, actively utilizing changes in the ETH/BTC exchange rate for operations, with funding behavior leaning more towards short- to medium-term rotations and focusing on structural gains from volatility.
● Comparison of Two Funding Characteristics: Passive anti-dip funds are often based on extremely long-cycle logic to build positions, with high tolerance for short-term price fluctuations, but slow to act in the face of relative price difference opportunities. In contrast, funds actively seeking ETH/BTC volatility gains place greater emphasis on adjustment efficiency and flexibility, increasing the frequency of position adjustments when technical and sentiment discrepancies arise. These two types of behavior coexist on-chain, reflecting that large funds are also weighing different levels of risk and return internally.
● Interpretation from a Risk Management Perspective: From a risk management standpoint, this whale's rotation around ETH-BTC is closer to a dynamic hedging and flexible allocation approach: when BTC technical pressure rises, it reduces WBTC exposure and increases ETH holdings, preserving high beta exposure to the overall crypto market while balancing risk and potential returns through structural adjustments within the assets. This approach contrasts with extreme strategies of simply "holding on" or "fully loading one side," providing a sample for understanding how large funds manage their portfolios during cyclical fluctuations.
On-Chain Cost of Only $2,916 Reflecting Chip Mentality
● Huge Contrast Between Cost and Scale: Research shows that this address had an initial cost of only about $2,916 when building its position in early 2022, while its current total holdings of approximately 17,707 WETH + 195.49 WBTC have reached a total asset scale of about $67.38 million. From a few thousand dollars of initial investment to tens of millions of dollars in asset volume, this extreme return multiple creates a completely different cost safety cushion and decision-making space compared to ordinary investors.
● Risk Tolerance of Low-Cost Chips: When the base cost approaches an "infinite safety cushion," even during phase pullbacks, the overall profit and loss structure of this address remains highly elastic. Therefore, when the market enters an adjustment period, it still has the motivation and psychological space to continue increasing volatility positions and seek additional profits through rotation. For holders of such extremely low-cost chips, short-term unrealized losses and volatility are more of a "paper noise," far from shaking the long-term profit pattern.
● Structural Differences Between Old Money and New Funds: In contrast, late entrants often build positions at higher price ranges, with closer stop-loss lines and lower volatility tolerance. Once the price pullback approaches or exceeds their psychological threshold, they may be forced to reduce or even liquidate their positions, making it difficult to replicate the behavior of large funds in deep volatility to "increase positions against the trend" or engage in high-frequency rotations. This cost structure difference leads to a divergence in subjective perceptions of risk and executable strategies among different entities in the same market environment.
● Rhythm Not Easily Replicated: For this reason, ordinary investors need to be acutely aware of the fundamental differences in funding volume, entry costs, and risk tolerance when observing whale operations on-chain. A reasonable high-risk rotation rhythm for extremely low-cost chips may not necessarily apply to personal accounts that entered at mid- to high-cost levels. Recklessly mimicking the aggressive repositioning of large addresses could lead to unbearable losses when pullbacks amplify.
Ongoing Observations of the ETH-BTC Game
● Summary of Rotation and Accumulation Signals: Comprehensive on-chain data shows that this whale address completed a two-way rotation around the ETH/BTC exchange rate on January 3 and January 26, utilizing the exchange rates of 0.03479 and 0.03268 to rebalance its asset structure, ultimately achieving a net increase in ETH holdings of 6.45% and further amplifying total asset value. This round of operations clearly points to a core signal: it has actively increased its exposure weight to ETH at the portfolio level.
● Coexistence of Technical Weakness and "Undervaluation": Currently, Bitcoin has fallen below $87,000 and lost the 21-week moving average at $96,044, showing clear technical pressure. On the other hand, about 70% of institutions in a Coinbase survey still believe that BTC is undervalued in the $85,000-$95,000 range, creating a rare dislocation of "technical bearishness and bullish sentiment." Against this backdrop, the whale has chosen to tilt towards ETH, further highlighting the structural divergence of funds across different sectors is intensifying.
● Verification Value of Subsequent On-Chain Movements: Moving forward, the market can focus on tracking whether this address continues to reduce its WBTC holdings, further increases its ETH position, or engages in a new round of hedging rotations when the ETH/BTC exchange rate experiences significant fluctuations again. These subsequent on-chain behaviors will provide important verification clues as to whether the current one-time operation is a short-term game or a medium-term structural adjustment, helping to understand the evolution of large funds' judgments on the relative value of ETH and BTC more precisely.
● Insights for Ordinary Investors: For most investors, what is more worth learning from this whale operation is not the specific points and rhythms, but rather to focus on relative strength and self-risk tolerance. In a phase where BTC shows technical and emotional divergence and ETH/BTC volatility intensifies, blindly following the whale often makes it difficult to replicate its gains. Instead, cautiously adjusting the relative allocation ratio between assets based on one's own capital size, cost structure, and psychological thresholds is a more realistic strategic approach.
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。
