On January 26, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, an ETH whale, who had not made significant on-chain moves for two years, suddenly opened a high-leverage position on Aave V3, attracting significant market attention. On-chain data shows that the address deposited 2000 ETH (approximately $5.76 million) into Aave V3 that day, borrowed 2 million USDC, and then bought back 686 ETH, increasing its total holdings to 10,759 ETH (approximately $31.24 million). Against the backdrop of low valuation indicators like MVRV and overall cautious sentiment, the whale's choice to aggressively go long with high leverage stands in stark contrast to the wait-and-see attitude of most participants, raising a key question: in a misalignment of cycles and sentiment, is this bet a bottom-fishing move or an amplification of risk exposure?
Leverage Path Breakdown and Position Size
● Operation Link Review: On-chain data indicates that this dormant whale address completed a standardized leveraged long loop on Aave V3, first depositing 2000 ETH as collateral, then borrowing 2 million USDC, and subsequently converting the borrowed USDC into 686 ETH for repurchase. This structure essentially uses the owned ETH as collateral to finance and expand ETH exposure through USDC, creating a position that is more sensitive to ETH price movements.
● Position and Size Assessment: After completing this operation, the address currently holds a total of 10,759 ETH, valued at approximately $31.24 million according to the report (specific valuation depends on the ETH price at the time, using a single data source in the text). In terms of the size of a single address on mainstream lending platforms like Aave, this scale has the potential to influence local liquidity and liquidation depth, especially during increased volatility, where its passive deleveraging behavior could amplify price fluctuations.
● Leverage and Liquidation Characteristics: Under typical lending protocol parameters, this type of “deposit ETH—borrow USDC—buy ETH” structure often concentrates position risk on ETH price pullbacks: profits are magnified during price increases, while the speed of approaching the liquidation threshold accelerates during price declines. Since the report did not disclose the specific health factor and liquidation line for this address on Aave V3, we can only judge based on general logic—this type of high-leverage long position is more sensitive to price declines, and once a sharp drop occurs, it is likely to trigger an automatic liquidation chain.
Counter-Cyclical Accumulation Under Negative MVRV
● Indicator Meaning and Consensus: The MVRV indicator from Santiment measures the difference between the market value and cost of holders. When MVRV is positive and high, it indicates that most holders have significant unrealized gains, often increasing potential selling pressure; conversely, the saying “when the MVRV indicator is negative, there are usually good entry opportunities” reflects market consensus: the negative range means most investors are in an unrealized loss state, and their willingness to sell actively is relatively weakened, historically corresponding to better risk-return segments in the medium to long term.
● Divergence of Sentiment and Behavior: From the current valuation and MVRV status of ETH, overall sentiment remains cautious, with more funds choosing to wait or hold light positions for clearer direction. In contrast, the whale has chosen to leverage up and buy in a low MVRV environment, creating a significant divergence of “cold indicators, hot behavior.” On one side is the relatively low position structure indicated by the data, while on the other, a very small number of large funds choose to amplify their entry against the trend, leading the market's interpretation of this divergence to focus on the price developments in the following weeks.
● Types of Motivation for Leverage Amplification: Choosing to leverage up in a negative MVRV context is often categorized as “using the pullback range to enhance long-term holding returns,” “betting on a rebound from negative sentiment,” or “positioning in advance for potential positive news.” However, the report did not provide the historical behavior patterns and subjective intentions of this address, so we can only describe it from the results perspective: the whale actively chose to use leverage to increase sensitivity to ETH at a point where both data and sentiment are relatively cold, rather than spreading any associations about its specific judgments, internal information, or price targets.
Signals from Multiple Large Buy Orders
● Bulk Accumulation via Wintermute: On the same day, January 26, 2026, on-chain and off-chain information showed that another whale address increased its holdings by 20,000 ETH through the professional market-making institution Wintermute, amounting to approximately $5.613 million. Compared to the on-chain leveraged behavior on Aave, this large buy order completed through a professional liquidity provider is closer to traditional “over-the-counter agreement transactions” or deep liquidity matching, reflecting a configuration method that does not rely on borrowing, directly exchanging funds for tokens.
● Structural Differences in Accumulation Paths: The operations of the two whales form a stark contrast in structure: the former relied on Aave V3 to construct a leveraged long position with 2000 ETH + 2 million USDC, amplifying price volatility sensitivity; the latter, however, bought 20,000 ETH in one go through Wintermute, resembling a pure allocation or rebalancing action, with almost no involvement of liquidation lines and health factors as passive risk parameters. This comparison of “one using borrowing leverage, the other using professional OTC market-making channels” reflects the differing approaches of large funds in risk preference and tool selection.
● Amplifying Effects on Supply, Demand, and Sentiment: On the same trading day, multiple large funds concentrated on increasing ETH exposure, which will directly compress the supply of circulating tokens in the short term, raising the weight of buy orders on the price curve. Even if the price response does not immediately reflect linearly, this scale of accumulation often transmits through depth, slippage, and order book structure to market sentiment, causing originally cautious funds to begin reassessing ETH's medium-term cost-effectiveness, potentially forming a “whale leads the rhythm, retail follows” amplification cycle in the rhythm of pullbacks and rebounds.
Leverage Chain and Potential Liquidation Impact
● Trigger Mechanism for Passive Deleveraging: Based on the approximate scale of 2000 ETH deposited and 2 million USDC borrowed, it can be inferred that such positions, once faced with a rapid ETH price pullback, will cause the protocol's risk management module to automatically tighten the borrowing limits for that address, gradually approaching the liquidation range as the health factor declines. For holders, this means that even without actively closing positions, they may be passively reduced or face partial liquidation during price declines, thereby amplifying selling pressure in a short time and creating negative feedback.
● Chain Reaction of Lending Platforms: If ETH experiences severe volatility, high-leverage ETH longs on lending platforms like Aave will be the first to be affected, with liquidation bots concentrating on selling collateral assets to repay debts in a short time. Once the scale of liquidation expands, it will not only test the liquidity pool depth and pricing efficiency of the protocol itself but also exert additional selling pressure on external spot and derivatives markets, leading to further price declines and triggering a chain of liquidations for more positions. This chain reaction has occurred in multiple historical crashes and is one of the most sensitive risk points for the market regarding high-leverage behavior.
● Spontaneous Liquidation and Intervention Boundaries: Some market analysts have pointed out that “joint interventions only occur in extremely rare circumstances,” meaning that in most situations, even when significant liquidations and sell-offs occur, market participants and protocol parties are more inclined to allow prices and leverage to rebalance through spontaneous liquidation. In the current context, the whale's high-leverage position provides additional fuel for upward movement while also increasing the likelihood of being included in the “forced sell” sequence during extreme market conditions. Investors interpreting this signal must simultaneously recognize its potential dual-edged nature.
Side Narrative: New Token Airdrops and RWA Funds
● WMTX Launch and Airdrop Game: Within the same timeline, Binance Alpha launched WMTX and initiated an airdrop activity, providing the market with another short-term speculative narrative. This type of new token + airdrop combination often attracts a large amount of speculative funds and attention in the short term, with some liquidity temporarily drawn away from mainstream assets and redirected towards high volatility, high uncertainty short-term bets. This may lead to a cooling of transactions and a dispersion of sentiment for mainstream assets like ETH during certain periods, but it also allows those adhering to medium to long-term allocation logic to gain relatively “quiet” windows for building or increasing positions.
● Institutional RWA Fund Entry Signal: On the other hand, China Pacific Insurance and Hivemind have collaborated to establish a $500 million RWA tokenized fund, reflecting the ongoing willingness of traditional financial capital to lay out on-chain assets and tokenization tracks from a more macro perspective. Unlike the high-leverage behavior of on-chain whales, these RWA funds tend to focus on medium to long-term, compliant, and asset pool-based management, with significantly different return expectations, risk control systems, and regulatory frameworks, but they also convey a signal to the market: large funds are deepening their exposure to on-chain assets through various paths.
● Contrasting Directions of Different Funds: Observing the aggressive leverage of the whale on Aave, the large spot allocation through Wintermute, and the $500 million RWA fund within the same period reveals a multi-layered picture of fund betting: on one end are trading-oriented, directionally clear, and leverage-amplified short to medium-term bets, while on the other end are allocation-oriented, limited leverage, and more compliance-focused institutional entries. The two are not contradictory but provide their respective “betting methods” on ETH and its related ecosystem under the same macro narrative, with different durations and risk preferences.
The Race Between Leverage and Cycles
● Puzzle of Risk-Return Framework: The current multiple whale accumulations of ETH—including the 10,759 ETH address leveraging up on Aave V3 and the large buy order of 20,000 ETH through Wintermute—combined with the low MVRV environment indicated by Santiment, collectively form a relatively favorable risk-return framework for medium to long-term bulls. However, this is only part of the “odds” and does not equate to a certain outcome; what truly determines returns is still the price path and the holders' ability to withstand volatility.
● Key Variables to Track: In the absence of verifiable predictions for future prices, what investors can do is continuously track several key data points: changes in leverage ratios of large on-chain addresses, ETH lending rates and liquidation scales on lending platforms like Aave, and the flow of whale tokens across different price ranges. Through these dynamic signals, one can sense the rhythm changes of “leveraging—deleverage—rebalancing” earlier, rather than relying solely on price candlesticks to explain volatility afterward.
● Trading Thoughts from a Data Perspective: Starting from the data and respecting the whale's accumulation signals, it can be seen as an important but not the only reference variable; at the same time, it must be recognized that any chain based on borrowing may ultimately lead to liquidation or closing positions, and the higher the leverage, the stronger the dependence on the price path. Whether following or taking counter positions, the core should always return to one principle: first set the acceptable risk exposure, then adjust the position rhythm based on MVRV, on-chain leverage, and token flow, rather than being swept along by the whale's size and sentiment.
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。
