On February 3rd at around 14:01 UTC+8, on-chain monitoring tools captured that the address 0xfeb…03b2 exchanged 211 ETH for 491,721 GHO again, continuing a pattern of selling ETH for GHO approximately every two hours over the past period. According to a single data source, this address has recently exchanged a total of 704 ETH for approximately $1.65 million worth of GHO, combined with a previous record of 493 ETH exchanged for 500,000 USDC + 659,510 GHO, leading to an overall scale and frequency of asset reallocation that has begun to attract market interpretation. However, there is currently a lack of official confirmation regarding the absolute ownership relationship between this address and Vitalik Buterin, as well as the final use of this batch of GHO. Four days ago, Vitalik publicly announced a donation of 16,384 ETH (approximately $44.75 million) to open-source projects and transferred it to a multi-signature wallet, but did not disclose any technical paths for executing the donation using stablecoins like GHO. This information asymmetry, where the "statement is about donations, but on-chain we see stablecoin operations," quickly became a focal point of controversy.
Two-hour selling orders: 704 pieces…
● In terms of trading rhythm, the latest transaction occurred at 2026-02-03 06:01 UTC, where address 0xfeb…03b2 exchanged 211 ETH for 491,721 GHO, maintaining a frequency of approximately one transaction every two hours, similar to previous transactions. Since the first transaction was focused on by on-chain tools, this address has shown characteristics of "batch and rhythmic" reduction of ETH rather than a one-time liquidation, leaving room for the market to continuously track and amplify speculation.
● According to a single source, this round of asset reallocation targeting GHO has accumulated to 704 ETH, equivalent to about $1.65 million worth of GHO, and prior to this, the address had also exchanged 493 ETH for 500,000 USDC + 659,510 GHO. The combination of these two operations has further amplified the scale of "selling ETH—exchanging for stablecoins," but the information sources remain concentrated on a few on-chain analysis tools and have not yet been cross-verified by multiple parties, necessitating caution when using these figures.
● In terms of identity, address 0xfeb…03b2 has been marked as a "Vitalik-associated address" by multiple on-chain analysis tools, and is therefore widely regarded on social media as being highly related to the Ethereum founder. However, these labels are more based on historical interaction relationships and patterns of fund flow, and there is currently no publicly verifiable proof of absolute ownership, meaning that equating it directly with "Vitalik's immediate decision-making" still exists in a gray area in discourse.
● From an on-chain perspective, this round of selling is not a simple ETH-to-GHO exchange; there have been multiple intermediate steps where ETH is wrapped as WETH before further operations. Some WETH has been explicitly used to exchange for GHO or USDC, while the subsequent destination of about 5,000 WETH remains unclear, and has not formed a consistent explanation in mainstream analysis. This "pending" large amount of assets is also viewed by some observers as an uncertain variable that needs to be closely tracked moving forward.
Donation commitment and on-chain cash flow: Trust…
● Four days ago, Vitalik confirmed through public channels that he transferred 16,384 ETH (approximately $44.75 million) to a multi-signature wallet to support open-source projects, which is seen as an important action continuing his long-standing tradition of charitable donations. Corresponding on-chain records show that these funds were indeed transferred from addresses within his known control to the multi-signature wallet, but the official statement did not provide detailed explanations on whether the donation would be executed through splitting, exchanging, or using specific stablecoin forms.
● After the latest round of GHO transactions was captured, on-chain observer @OnchainLens proposed an interpretation: these operations exchanging ETH for GHO "may correspond to the specific execution phase of the 16,384 ETH donation plan announced at the end of January." This statement quickly spread on social media, providing a logically coherent narrative template for "this is fulfilling the donation commitment, rather than simply reducing holdings," but fundamentally remains a conjecture based on timing and the scale of amounts.
● As of the time of writing, official channels have not confirmed whether all or what proportion of these GHO exchanges are part of the donation plan, nor disclosed whether the recipient has any special preferences regarding the form of asset reception (native ETH vs stablecoins). Such silence can be viewed as a neutral choice in terms of technical operations, but leaves a significant interpretive space in terms of sentiment: the same batch of on-chain behavior can be applied by different groups to either "executing public welfare" or "increasing selling pressure" within two completely different frameworks.
● In the absence of clear information, attributing this round of exchanges directly to "personal consumption," "cashing out," or pointing to specific recipient institutions is an arbitrary inference that crosses the boundary of facts. The flow of GHO and USDC to multi-signature or intermediate addresses cannot yet restore a complete list of final recipients and usage details from publicly available on-chain data, and further observation of the subsequent path of funds can only remain at the level of "tracking" rather than "qualitative" analysis.
Founder selling pressure or executing donations?…
● In the retail community and on social media, the phrase "suspected Vitalik reducing ETH holdings" is enough to quickly ignite emotions. For some holders, the founder's address selling coins is naturally associated with "top signals" or "additional selling pressure on prices," especially when the single and cumulative amounts reach millions of dollars, which can easily trigger concerns about the short-term absorption capacity of the secondary market, even though there is currently no direct evidence showing that these transactions have caused an immediate impact on market prices.
● Conversely, one narrative is to view this round of operations entirely as a technical step to "execute the established donation plan": to provide a more budget-friendly and payable form of funding for open-source projects, it is necessary to exchange the volatile ETH portion for stablecoins. Such logic is not uncommon in past charitable and funding practices. Thus, the same on-chain sale, within this framework, is no longer seen as a "new selling pressure signal," but merely a conversion of the already promised 16,384 ETH from book value into a more practical form of funds.
● Some on-chain analysts have approached from a technical path, pointing out that the WETH conversion that occurred midway "may suggest further reductions in holdings," as wrapping assets facilitates movement and splitting across more protocols. However, this speculation currently lacks empirical support from subsequent trading behavior and has not provided a clear target direction; in the absence of new on-chain evidence, such views are more suitable as hypotheses that require continuous validation rather than definitive conclusions.
● The deeper tension lies in the fact that, on one hand, the community generally expects the founder's assets to be as transparent as possible, ideally clearly distinguishing between "personal assets," "donation funds," and "foundation operations"; on the other hand, any large on-chain action closely associated with Vitalik is easily interpreted emotionally as a price signal or stance statement. The founder's behavior has almost no buffer zone between transparency and privacy, and this structural contradiction makes similar events likely to recur periodically in the future.
Why favor GHO? From Aave…
● In terms of asset selection, GHO is the native stablecoin of the Aave ecosystem, based on an over-collateralized lending system, which significantly differs from stablecoins like USDC that are issued by centralized institutions and supported by fiat reserves. In past DeFi narratives, GHO has been seen as an important piece in Aave's attempt to build a self-consistent financial loop, and its adoption level is not only related to yield scenarios but also to protocol governance rights and risk distribution methods.
● Based on this background, some viewpoints suggest that this concentrated reallocation in GHO "may reflect Vitalik's support or preference for the Aave ecosystem," for example, by enhancing its exposure and circulation among high-net-worth addresses through actual use. However, this statement currently lacks any public endorsement from Vitalik himself or related teams and can only be classified as a conjecture awaiting verification; hastily treating it as a fact would overestimate the subjective attitude expressed behind a single trading behavior.
● It is worth noting that this round of operations does not only bet on a single stablecoin, but also features a dual path of GHO and USDC: the previous 493 ETH has already been exchanged for 500,000 USDC + 659,510 GHO. This combination is closer to the idea of "diversifying exposure" in terms of liquidity and risk management: USDC has deeper liquidity in mainstream exchanges and payment scenarios, while GHO has better native integration within the Aave ecosystem. The combination facilitates fund dispatch while retaining hedging against different protocol risk models.
● Symbolically, if donations or fund management choose to use protocol-native stablecoins (like GHO) as part of the vehicle, it equates to a high-trust endorsement for DeFi projects: not only proving that their stablecoin can carry large amounts of funds, but also prioritizing the recipient to think about fund utilization in the on-chain native environment. However, for the teams actually receiving the donations, this also means facing more complex asset management issues, including how to balance the decentralized philosophy with real funding needs.
The time lag of on-chain intelligence: From retail fear…
● In terms of dissemination paths, this event once again showcases the typical chain of "on-chain data tools—analysis accounts—social media—secondary markets": first, monitoring tools like OnchainLens captured the large exchange from 0xfeb…03b2, which was then amplified and interpreted by a few KOLs, ultimately being packaged by thousands of retweets and clickbait headlines as "founder selling" or "whale fleeing." For most retail investors, what arrives first is not the cold, hard trading data, but rather screenshots and emotional tags already imbued with strong narrative colors.
● There is a clear time lag between the on-chain facts and media headlines to market sentiment. On-chain behavior occurs in seconds, while explanations and dissemination often amplify in stages over several hours; price and sentiment feedback, however, may fluctuate before cognition is completed. This means that by the time most people truly understand the specific path of "211 ETH exchanged for 491,721 GHO," the market has already attempted to price in earlier panic or optimism, making it difficult for information and prices to remain synchronized.
● In the absence of public disclosure regarding the purpose and final destination of the transactions, the market has to price risk based on "incomplete information": some choose to view any sell-off related to Vitalik as a signal of reduction, preemptively selling to hedge against uncertainty; others believe this is more likely to be the execution of donations or asset structure optimization, choosing to ignore short-term fluctuations. This divergence based on different information sets and risk preferences is part of the current price formation mechanism in the crypto market and explains why the same event can trigger completely opposite actions among different trading groups.
● As such controversies repeatedly arise, discussions within the community about "whether there should be clearer disclosure norms for founder funds" have become increasingly heated. One voice advocates that public chain founders should provide regular explanations regarding the uses and changes of large addresses to reduce external suspicions of private sell-offs or manipulations; another voice emphasizes the boundaries of personal assets and privacy, arguing that founders should not be permanently bound to a "transparent persona." The struggle surrounding this issue is likely to gradually evolve into more systematic industry practices or self-regulatory standards in the future.
The next 16,384 ETH…
The recent ETH to GHO operations surrounding the address 0xfeb…03b2 have brought two narrative threads to the forefront: on one side, the emotional and price associations triggered by the "suspected Vitalik reduction," and on the other, the relatively rational but still insufficiently evidenced explanation of "executing the 16,384 ETH donation commitment." The on-chain facts are clear, but the real controversy lies in how to interpret these facts with the least emotional bias in the absence of official explanations.
Moving forward, whether the authorities will provide further clarification on the relationship between the GHO/USDC exchanges and the donation plan, as well as how the currently unresolved 5,000 WETH will circulate, will profoundly influence whether this incident is classified as "an emotional blunder" or "a turning point in the founder's asset allocation trend." As more funding flows are disclosed on-chain, the market will continuously adjust its collective memory of this event.
Regardless of where the final answer points, the ongoing inflow and outflow of large whale addresses are reshaping the Ethereum community's long-term expectations of the founder's role: he is both a technical leader and a key decision-maker for large funds, with each asset adjustment potentially magnified into a value stance and market signal. How to establish a transparency framework that respects personal asset boundaries while soothing market sentiment may determine the public atmosphere in which the story of "the next 16,384 ETH" unfolds.
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。
