On January 30, 2026, Bhutan Sovereign Wealth Fund Druk Holdings saw its on-chain high-leverage exposure concentrated and amplified: its 116,560 stETH bet on Aave, leveraging a long position on ETH, caused its health ratio to briefly drop below 1.2 due to market pullbacks, currently oscillating in the 1.15-1.22 range. This position has neither triggered systemic liquidation nor crossed the market-recognized "risk red line," becoming a focal point for both bulls and bears. More tension arises from the fact that this high-volatility DeFi strategy is executed not by an ordinary fund, but by a sovereign fund backed by national credit, which, under the traditional framework of "stability above all," is tearing open a new fissure with such an aggressive on-chain play.
The Amplification Path of Risk from 116,560 stETH On-Chain Bet
● Operational Path and Rhythm: On-chain data shows that Druk Holdings has collateralized 116,560 stETH on Aave, using it as collateral to borrow more assets within the protocol, thus forming a leveraged long position on ETH. This model essentially leverages "collateral derivatives to amplify nominal positions," which can magnify profits during bullish phases, but once prices reverse, leverage simultaneously amplifies losses and risk exposure.
● Floating Losses and Health Ratio Linkage: According to multi-source on-chain data, the stETH-related position currently has about 15% floating losses, indicating that the price pullback of ETH and stETH has begun to materially erode the collateral buffer. As the market value of the collateral shrinks, the overall health ratio of the Aave position has been lowered to the 1.15-1.22 range, with each price fluctuation in the leveraged structure rapidly increasing potential liquidation pressure and execution risk.
● Amplification Effect of Psychological Warning Line: From a trader's perspective, a health ratio below 1.2 is seen as an important psychological warning line—though this does not equate to triggering the actual liquidation threshold, it symbolizes that "the safety cushion has been significantly thinned" in terms of market sentiment. When the entity is a sovereign fund, this psychological line is further amplified: a seemingly controllable fluctuation may be interpreted as the national fund being just a step away from passive reduction or even passive liquidation.
The Symbolism and Tear of Sovereign Funds Engaging in DeFi
● Double-Edged Sword Symbol of a New Milestone: Some commentators assert, “The direct participation of sovereign funds in on-chain leveraged operations is a new milestone for institutions.” On one hand, Druk Holdings enters DeFi with a national background, not merely holding assets but deeply utilizing lending and leverage tools, indicating that sovereign funds are no longer satisfied with traditional custody and OTC allocations, but are actively embracing on-chain financial infrastructure; on the other hand, this "milestone" also signifies a vacuum in regulation and governance: national funds are exposed in a highly volatile, code-driven system, with costs far exceeding those of ordinary institutions.
● Tension of Traditional Sovereign Framework: Sovereign wealth funds have historically excelled in duration management, asset-liability matching, and risk budget control, typically diversifying holdings in stocks, bonds, infrastructure, and alternative assets, with the core goal of preserving and increasing intergenerational wealth, rather than engaging in short-term high-volatility speculation. In contrast, using stETH for high-leverage trading on DeFi protocols deeply ties the yield curve to market volatility, which is in stark conflict with the traditional mission of "long-term stability and low drawdown," even challenging the role of sovereign funds as "market stabilizers."
● Regulatory Gaps and Backstop Dilemma: Planet Daily comments that the on-chain leverage practices of sovereign funds "expose regulatory gaps." The on-chain world indeed provides real-time transparent asset trajectories, but there are currently no mature, specialized rules regarding key constraints such as leverage ratios, risk limits, and loss tolerances surrounding sovereign funds. In the event of large-scale floating losses or even liquidation, it remains unclear whether the costs will be borne by the fund itself, the higher-level treasury, or ordinary taxpayers, and this ambiguity of responsibility itself is a source of systemic risk.
The Emotional and Mechanistic Entanglement Around Health Ratio 1.2
● Conceptual Distinction: Psychological Line vs. Liquidation Line: Analysts emphasize, “The health ratio of 1.2 is a psychological warning line; actual liquidation triggers require consideration of multiple parameters.” In lending protocols like Aave, the health ratio is a comprehensive indicator of the value of collateral assets relative to liabilities and discount factors, used to measure how close a position is to liquidation. The psychological 1.2 is more of a customary safety buffer standard among market participants, while the real liquidation threshold is embedded in the protocol parameters and will not change due to public opinion or sentiment.
● Multi-Factor Constraints on Trigger Logic: Without introducing any specific thresholds, it is clear that liquidation risk is not determined by a single price point, but is a comprehensive result of collateral asset price fluctuations, discount rate settings, changes in borrowing rates, and dynamic adjustments of positions. Price declines directly compress collateral value; the more conservative the discount rate, the smaller the safety space left for the position; and changes in interest rates affect liability costs and repayment rhythms. For large positions like Druk Holdings, these variables often move in an unfavorable direction during high volatility periods.
● Emotional Game and On-Chain "Hunting" Expectations: Surrounding this large position of the sovereign fund, market sentiment quickly polarized. One side worries that if ETH continues to be under pressure, the health ratio sliding towards the real liquidation zone could trigger an on-chain "stampede," with some short-selling forces possibly attempting to increase selling pressure to approach liquidation, igniting a resonance of volatility between spot and derivatives; the other side views it as a potential "policy opportunity," believing that once the sovereign fund is forced to reduce its position, it will instead release a large amount of chips below, providing a bottom-fishing window for long-term funds. The collision of these two expectations gives this health ratio curve a narrative weight beyond mere technical indicators.
From Hyperliquid to Nomura: The Forking of Global Leverage Curves
● Amplification Signal of Leverage Activity: While Druk Holdings' leveraged position risk exposure is evident, Hyperliquid's daily trading volume surged by 57%, reaching a three-month high, with on-chain and off-chain data pointing to the same reality: overall leverage and speculative activity are on the rise. High-frequency trading and high-leverage strategies are more likely to gain a voice in such an environment, where small fluctuations can trigger larger nominal position adjustments, exacerbating price volatility.
● Defensive Posture of Traditional Giants: In stark contrast to the aggressive operations of the Bhutan sovereign fund, traditional financial giant Nomura Holdings chose to reduce its crypto risk exposure during the same period. This "shrinking front" action represents a tendency for classic investment banks and brokerages to revert to more familiar and controllable asset portfolios in the face of regulatory uncertainty, liquidity fluctuations, and macroeconomic changes, sacrificing yield elasticity for greater capital stability.
● Opposite Positions of Global Funds on the Same Curve: On one side is the Bhutan sovereign fund, leveraging DeFi to increase its ETH exposure in the name of the state, while on the other side, global institutions like Nomura are actively reducing leverage and shrinking their balance sheets; combined with the surge in trading volumes on platforms like Hyperliquid, global funds exhibit a "misaligned position" on the same crypto risk curve: some are accelerating towards the volatility frontier, while others are quietly retreating to safety zones. This differentiation reflects not only varying risk appetites but also foreshadows more severe price and liquidity shocks in the future.
Regulatory Differentiation in Asia: The Anomaly of Bhutan's Aggressive Stance
● Hong Kong CARF and Cross-Border Compliance: At the regional policy level, Hong Kong plans to implement a crypto asset tax automatic exchange (CARF) framework starting in 2028, aiming to incorporate relevant transactions both domestically and internationally into a more complete tax and information exchange system. For cross-border funds, this means that future participation in crypto asset allocation through Hong Kong will have to undergo more stringent compliance reviews and information disclosures, continuously compressing the arbitrage space that operates in gray areas, forcing institutions to choose between "transparency" and "flexibility."
● Comparison with Open Paths in Some European Countries: Meanwhile, the Governor of the Czech National Bank publicly supports Bitcoin, sending another policy signal within Europe—despite the overarching framework of prudent regulation, some decision-makers still view Bitcoin as a new tool that can occupy a place in macro asset allocation. This attitude contrasts with the Asian financial centers' greater emphasis on compliance and preventing capital outflows, showcasing the differing balances between "encouraging innovation" and "controlling risks" across jurisdictions.
● Bhutan's Anomalous Position: Against the backdrop of increasingly refined regulation and the gradual formation of compliance frameworks, the Bhutan sovereign fund's active embrace of high-risk DeFi leverage appears particularly jarring. It neither prioritizes institutional building like Hong Kong nor focuses on policy declarations like some European countries, but directly places sovereign credit within on-chain protocols and market fluctuations. This path makes Bhutan stand out sharply in the Asian regulatory landscape: it is not setting rules for crypto assets but is testing the depths of unregulated zones with national assets.
When National Funds Bet on Volatility: The Next Step at the Edge of the Cliff
In summary, the leveraged position constructed by Druk Holdings on Aave with 116,560 stETH brings a key contradiction to the forefront: the deep binding of national credibility with high-volatility assets. When sovereign funds choose to no longer just act as long-term value investors but participate in high-frequency, leverage-driven DeFi games, any severe market fluctuation may be interpreted by the outside world as an indirect test of the country's governance capacity and risk control system.
If the price of ETH continues to be under pressure, leading to a further decline in the health ratio of the position, without touching any specific liquidation parameters, foreseeable chain reactions include: amplified market doubts about Bhutan's fiscal soundness, increased hesitation among other sovereign funds regarding crypto asset allocations, and heightened vigilance from regulators towards the interaction between DeFi protocols and national funds. Should passive reductions or localized liquidations actually occur, their symbolic significance may far exceed the financial losses themselves—this would be seen as a landmark event of "the state being educated by the market on-chain."
In the next phase, the story of sovereign funds participating in crypto and DeFi can only extend along two main lines: either under the pressure of risk events, they are forced to return to traditional risk frameworks, re-emphasizing duration management, limiting leverage, and downplaying the impact of short-term price fluctuations; or conversely, they compel global regulators to rewrite the rules of the game, establishing clearer boundaries and responsibilities for sovereign funds' on-chain participation. Regardless of which path prevails, one thing is certain—when national funds actively bet on volatility, DeFi is no longer just "a playground for crypto geeks," but is evolving into a new frontline where sovereign credit confronts algorithmic rules.
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。
