On February 3, 2026, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin once again adjusted his personal asset structure on-chain: he sold 493 ETH through CoW Swap, with the transaction size confirmed by multiple parties to be approximately $1.16 million. This was accompanied by a series of actions, including converting 5000 ETH to WETH and granting an authorization limit of up to 5000 ETH. The concentration of these operations at the same time led the market to question: is this merely a routine asset reallocation, or is it a potential signal worth amplifying? In a time when the founder's every move is under the spotlight, drawing a clear line between emotion and fact becomes the real test of this event.

Selling 493 ETH: On-chain Details and Historical Comparison

● Overview of the Operation: According to on-chain data, Vitalik used the address 0xfeb0…03b2 to sell 493 ETH through CoW Swap on February 3, 2026, which amounted to approximately $1.16 million at the time. This scale is not extremely large for a single on-chain transaction, but due to his unique identity and the subsequent series of authorization actions, it quickly attracted attention and discussion in the community, becoming one of the key events marked by on-chain monitoring tools that day.

● Size Positioning: The transaction amount of approximately $1.16 million has been cross-verified by multiple channels, making it a relatively reliable data point. In absolute terms, this transaction is considered medium-sized within the entire ETH market, far from being able to change market structure by itself. However, under the label of "founder's action," it is sufficient to amplify emotional impact, becoming a source of material for analysts and on-chain observers to track and interpret.

● Distinction from Previous Operations: Briefing shows that Vitalik previously sold about 211.84 ETH for 500,000 USDC and transferred it to a certain address. This historical operation serves as an important reference: on one hand, both transactions are in the hundreds of ETH range, showing a certain continuity; on the other hand, the sale of 493 ETH this time did not come with a widely confirmed clear counterparty combination, and the details of the counterparty still need verification. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish this narrative from the previous case of "211.84 ETH for 500,000 USDC" to avoid simple analogies.

The Logic Behind the 5000 ETH Authorization and WETH

● WETH and Authorization Actions: Simultaneously with the sale of 493 ETH, Vitalik converted 5000 ETH to WETH and granted an authorization limit of up to 5000 ETH on CoW Swap. Technically, this means that the address can use up to 5000 WETH for transactions or interactions under this protocol in the future, without needing to sign authorization for each small operation, which is a typical pre-authorization configuration method.

● Common Usage in DeFi Context: In the DeFi ecosystem, wrapping ETH into WETH is a standard step for interacting with most smart contracts, as many protocols are designed based on ERC-20 assets. Setting a higher authorization limit at once is also aimed at reducing the cost of frequent signatures and improving operational efficiency. For wallets that frequently participate in protocols or are preparing for a series of strategic reallocations, "high limit authorization + batch actual transactions" is a common pattern and does not necessarily equate to a large-scale sell-off plan.

● Authorization Amount and Market Imagination: Although from a technical perspective, the authorization limit is merely a "usable amount," the figure of 5000 ETH far exceeds the actual transaction of 493 ETH, naturally leaving room for market imagination. Some observers deduce that there may be subsequent larger-scale asset reallocations or complex strategy deployments, causing the "5000 authorization" itself to be imbued with more information than the actual actions, intensifying the discussion around this reallocation.

Founder’s Reduction or Routine Operation? The Magnifying Glass of Emotional Projection

● Standard Process Perspective: From some market voices, the sale of 493 ETH is closer to Vitalik's consistent standard operating procedure, which involves making medium-sized asset adjustments at appropriate times, rather than a panic vote on the market or project outlook. This viewpoint emphasizes that, from a long-term on-chain record perspective, Vitalik is not a "passive holder" who remains immobile but reallocates assets periodically based on demand, thus a single transaction should not be over-interpreted.

● Continuity in Historical Trajectory: Research briefs point out that Vitalik has previously had multiple records of operations in the hundreds of ETH range, such as the aforementioned sale of 211.84 ETH. Comparing this 493 ETH transaction with these historical operations shows that its scale and path (completed through decentralized protocols and on-chain transparency) logically exhibit continuity, resembling a part of a long-term asset management rhythm rather than a "rare anomaly." This continuity provides real support for the "routine reallocation" camp.

● Emotion and "Implicit Voting" Narrative: However, any on-chain action by a founder is often not viewed by the market as an ordinary transaction but is habitually treated as an "implicit vote" on price and outlook. Under this psychological mechanism, even a limited absolute scale may be amplified into a trend signal, triggering a chain reaction of emotions. Especially in phases where the macro environment or market sentiment is already sensitive, any wallet dynamics from core figures are more likely to trigger herd-like interpretations and dissemination.

Transparent On-chain Footprints and Dual Pressure of the Founder’s Role

● Amplification Effect in a Transparent Environment: Ethereum's complete on-chain transparency means that every asset movement from the founder's address cannot be "handled discreetly," but rather forms near real-time public opinion events under the amplification of tracking tools and social media. For ordinary users, this reflects "information symmetry"; however, for the founder, it means that any slight asset action may be overly amplified, even being assigned excessive subjective inferences without background context.

● Tension Between Binding Expectations and Diverse Needs: The public often expects Vitalik to be deeply tied to Ethereum in the long term, psychologically viewing his large holdings as a vote of confidence in the ecosystem. At the same time, as an individual, he also has legitimate needs for asset diversification, risk management, and daily expenditure arrangements. This tension between "the community hopes he never sells" and "individual rational asset allocation" surfaces with every on-chain change and forms distinctly different public opinion positions on social platforms.

● Subtle Impact of Decentralized Narrative and Trust: From the project level, whether the founder's frequent reallocations will impact the "decentralized narrative" depends on how the community interprets these actions—whether as individual financial behavior or as a statement of attitude towards the protocol's future. If every medium-sized transaction is interpreted as a loss of trust, it may lead to an over-reliance on a single individual in the project's narrative in the long run; conversely, if the market gradually views it as part of normalized asset management, it may help shift the trust focus from "individual" to "protocol and community" itself.

From Authorization to Game: Multiple Possibilities of 5000 ETH

● Dissecting Future Scenarios: Based on currently visible on-chain information, the 5000 ETH authorization may correspond to various asset allocation paths in the future, such as batch sales, exchanges with multiple assets, reserving liquidity for complex strategies or multi-protocol interactions, or even just a "reserved amount" to enhance operational flexibility. At this stage, the on-chain can only confirm that "permissions have been opened," and cannot accurately map to a specific subsequent transaction scenario.

● Discrepancy Between Authorization and Transaction: It is important to emphasize that the authorization limit does not equate to the actual transaction size. DeFi users are accustomed to setting a large authorization limit at once and then making multiple small calls based on actual needs, which is smoother both technically and experientially. However, in the public opinion arena, the impact of the numbers themselves often overshadows this fundamental fact, leading to the authorization limit being misread as a "definite scale of impending sell-off," thus triggering emotional fluctuations even before any actual transactions occur.

● Caution Against "Imaginative" Inferences: In the current information structure, the market cannot yet confirm how and when the 5000 ETH authorization will be utilized, nor can it deduce a specific future sell-off rhythm from it. For ordinary participants, the key is to distinguish between "executable limits" and "transactions that have occurred": the former is merely a technical upper limit setting, while the latter is the substantive flow of assets. Simplifying the setting of authorization as "locking in future dumping plans" is a typical imaginative narrative that requires extra caution.

Understanding the Founder’s Reallocation: Finding Balance Between Emotion and Fact

The sale of 493 ETH and the authorization of 5000 ETH appear, when placed in the historical trajectory of Vitalik's previous medium-sized ETH operations, to be more like a continuation of an existing asset management rhythm rather than an isolated breakpoint event. From the path to the scale, they resonate with previous on-chain records. What truly troubles the market is not the 493 ETH itself, but the psychological inertia of "any action by the founder is treated as a signal." At this stage, details surrounding motives and future plans still lack verifiable information, and there is no sufficient basis to construct a specific sell-off roadmap. In such circumstances, a more prudent approach is to anchor on publicly verifiable on-chain data, rather than amplifying emotions and imaginations in an information vacuum. Looking ahead, as the founder's asset management becomes more professionalized and diversified, the market may need to build a new interpretative framework: transitioning from "personalized interpretations of a single wallet" to "analysis logic based on data, strategies, and institutional arrangements," allowing the decentralized ecosystem to truly return to a focus on protocol and systemic factors rather than excessive scrutiny of individual actions.

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。