On February 6, 2026, BlackRock and the 1inch team investment fund simultaneously executed large asset transfers on-chain, attracting market attention. On that day, BlackRock deposited 3948 BTC (approximately $261 million) and 5734 ETH (approximately $11.04 million) into Coinbase, totaling around $272 million; the 1inch fund withdrew 20 million 1INCH from Binance, valued at approximately $1.86 million at market price. This series of actions occurred during a period when Bitcoin had retraced about 50% from its historical high and volatility had increased, leading institutions to concentrate their fund allocations in the "halving zone" of prices. Whether this was a defensive stop-loss, risk hedging, or preparation for potential reallocation and increased positions became the focal point of market debate.

On-chain Signals of BlackRock's $272 Million Entry

● Fund Structure Breakdown: On-chain data shows that on February 6, BlackRock-related addresses concentrated deposits of 3948 BTC and 5734 ETH into Coinbase, equivalent to about $261 million in BTC and $11.04 million in ETH, with a total value of approximately $272 million. In terms of currency structure, BTC dominates significantly, while ETH plays a "supporting allocation" role, aligning more closely with traditional institutions that primarily expose themselves to Bitcoin and use Ethereum as a supplementary asset, reflecting clear preferences of traditional asset management institutions.

● Credibility of Address Attribution: The aforementioned large transfer address has been clearly identified by Arkham as belonging to BlackRock-related entities, which is recognized as a credible source of on-chain intelligence in the industry, enhancing the reliability of attribution judgments. On-chain, the flow of funds from the address marked as BlackRock to the Coinbase custody address can be clearly traced with timestamps, showing a continuous, one-way large inflow pattern that is highly consistent with common institutional-level rebalancing or custody adjustment models, providing a relatively solid on-chain evidence base for market discussions about "institutional actions."

● Possible Scenarios for Exchange Inflows: Historically, large inflows of BTC and ETH at the hundreds of millions level into exchanges typically correspond to several scenarios: first, preparing for potential spot sales or margin for long/short derivatives; second, operational needs such as custodian switching or centralized asset management; third, possibly related to product structure hedging or rebalancing. Currently, there is no public information to pinpoint the specific purpose, so it can only be viewed as a neutral signal of "potential trading or reallocation prelude," rather than simply equating it to "inevitable selling pressure" or "certain accumulation."

1inch Fund's Three-Month Withdrawal Rhythm

● Cumulative Withdrawal Scale and Rhythm: On the same day, the 1inch team investment fund withdrew 20 million 1INCH from Binance, valued at approximately $1.86 million at that time. Combining publicly available data, over the past three months, the fund has cumulatively withdrawn 58.66 million 1INCH from Binance, totaling about $5.53 million, indicating a sustained, phased withdrawal from centralized exchanges rather than an isolated event on a single day. This rolling withdrawal is often more akin to planned asset reallocation or custody adjustments rather than short-term sentiment-driven position operations.

● "Recharge Before Withdrawal" Pathway: Observing over a longer period, the 1inch fund is not solely a one-way withdrawal entity. Research briefs indicate that in November 2025, it transferred $5 million USDC to Binance, subsequently withdrawing its own token 1INCH in phases, reflecting an asset allocation path of "first replenishing USD liquidity, then gradually transferring project tokens." This combination of actions resembles professional funds making structural adjustments within the exchange—supplementing margin or market-making funds with stable assets before arranging the migration of project-owned tokens to manage risk and liquidity in different scenarios.

● Potential Impact on Liquidity and Sentiment: When project teams or related funds concentrate on withdrawing their own tokens from exchanges, it may compress the circulating tokens available on exchanges in the short term, amplifying price volatility when order book depth is limited and sentiment is weak. On one hand, reduced circulation theoretically benefits price stability when demand remains unchanged; on the other hand, the market may worry whether project teams are preparing for OTC sales, lock-ups, or cross-platform transfers, leading to emotional interpretations. Currently, the lack of subsequent flow details means the impact remains at the "expectation and sentiment level," requiring further verification in conjunction with subsequent on-chain trajectories and transaction data.

Institutional Tactical Choices Amid Bitcoin's Halving Retracement

● Price Background During Severe Adjustments: According to statistics from data providers like CryptoQuant, Bitcoin is currently down about 50% from its historical high, entering what is typically regarded as a "halving-level" deep retracement zone. Since the beginning of 2026, price volatility has significantly increased, with leveraged funds frequently being forced to deleverage, and the noise of short-term signals on-chain and at the exchange level has greatly amplified. In this environment, any single large fund movement is likely to be interpreted as magnified due to increased market sensitivity.

● Possible Motivations Behind Concentrated Inflows: During price halving and increased volatility, concentrating BTC and ETH into exchanges could theoretically correspond to various tactics such as risk hedging, stop-loss execution, product hedging, or position restructuring. For institutions like BlackRock, the complexity of spot and derivatives combinations, ETF product exposures, and OTC counterparty structures means that the mere act of "entering the exchange" cannot deduce whether they intend to sell off large amounts. A more reasonable interpretation is that institutions are reserving execution space for a series of flexible operations, including reducing positions, hedging, or utilizing volatility for rebalancing, rather than making one-sided bets.

● Institutional and Retail Rhythm Discrepancies: During deep retracement phases, retail sentiment often panics on days of sharp declines, tending to "sell off positions"; meanwhile, institutional funds are more likely to make structural adjustments during liquidity-rich, highly volatile windows. This is reflected in on-chain data, where the timing of "institutional funds entering or leaving" often does not overlap with peaks of retail panic sentiment. Currently, BlackRock's aggregation of thousands of BTC and ETH into Coinbase, alongside the 1inch fund's sustained withdrawal of tokens from Binance over three months, exemplifies this rhythm discrepancy—where the former is more about utilizing volatility for positioning or hedging, while the latter is about gradually extracting circulating tokens over an extended period, contrasting sharply with short-term chasing and panic selling behavior.

Market Interpretation of IBIT Leverage Option Liquidation Speculation

● Source of Liquidation Claims: Surrounding this round of Bitcoin's sharp decline and concentrated fund reallocation, Parker White of DeFi Dev Corp proposed a market speculation—some hedge funds holding IBIT may have encountered forced liquidations while using leveraged option structures to hedge or amplify exposure during severe volatility, triggering a chain of selling pressure. This claim attempts to explain the day's sharp price drop and large on-chain fund movements through the lens of derivative leverage imbalance, quickly spreading within the community due to its alignment with the "leverage cascade" narrative.

● Community Response to Speculation: Some viewpoints suggest that this "IBIT leverage option liquidation" hypothesis possesses a certain degree of logical coherence. For instance, a Dragonfly partner has been quoted as giving a "relatively reasonable" evaluation of this speculation, making it one of the mainstream explanations within the current community. However, even among supporters, it is often viewed as "a possible link" rather than definitive proof, as different institutions have vastly different strategies, hedging methods, and risk management standards, making it difficult to explain all sources of volatility with a single structure.

● Data Gaps and Causal Boundaries: It is important to emphasize that there is currently no public data clearly disclosing the specific position sizes or liquidation triggers related to IBIT options, nor is there evidence that can precisely link to BlackRock's $272 million transfer purpose. Therefore, any claims that directly equate "IBIT option liquidation" with "BlackRock's on-chain transfer" as a definitive causal relationship are beyond the boundaries of fact. A more prudent approach is to view it as one of many possible narratives, maintaining a reserved attitude until transaction details and hedging structures are disclosed.

Correlation and Discrepancy Between On-chain Fund Flows and Price Volatility

● Overlaying Two Main Fund Trajectories: In terms of outcomes, BlackRock's large inflow of BTC and ETH into Coinbase and the 1inch fund's cumulative withdrawal of 58.66 million 1INCH over three months show a clear temporal overlap with the sharp price volatility on February 6. The former reflects traditional institutions' centralized management and trading preparations for mainstream assets, while the latter demonstrates the project team's mid-term adjustments to the circulating supply of their own tokens. These two fund trajectories, one entering and one exiting, respectively affect the exchange and on-chain holding structures, providing important quantitative context for understanding the market volatility on that day.

● Temporal Correlation Does Not Equal Causation: Although these actions highly coincide with the price drop in time, "occurring sequentially" does not automatically imply "mutual causation." A single on-chain action could be a preparatory move before a drop, a response measure after a drop, or merely a routine operational adjustment unrelated to volatility. Simplistically equating any large inflow to "a precursor to shorting" or directly viewing large withdrawals as "positive for hoarding" falls into the trap of misinterpreting temporal correlation as causation, which requires caution in an environment dominated by leverage and sentiment.

● Key Dimensions to Track Moving Forward: To more rationally assess the actual impact of this event, at least three dimensions should be continuously monitored: first, whether the net inflow/outflow scale at exchanges continues to amplify or significantly reverse in the coming days; second, whether on-chain marked addresses (such as BlackRock, 1inch fund, etc.) continue to transfer assets in the same direction or return to normal; third, whether there are any anomalies in the derivatives market's leverage ratios, liquidation scales, and basis changes. Only by observing these data in combination can one gradually distinguish between "short-term noise" and "mid-term trend signals."

Institutional Rebalancing is Just the Prelude; Market Games Continue to Escalate

The multi-point resonance rebalancing by institutions on February 6, 2026—BlackRock's $272 million level BTC and ETH inflow, combined with the 1inch fund's withdrawal of tens of millions of 1INCH—appears more as a part of the current institutional repricing cycle rather than a singular "positive" or "negative" event. Together, they outline a clear picture: during the phase of Bitcoin's halving retracement and escalating volatility, traditional asset management giants and crypto-native project funds are actively reshaping their position structures and liquidity layouts.

In the short term, this round of price volatility is still largely driven by leverage liquidations, order book depth, and instantaneous liquidity, with individual large on-chain transfers merely being surface events magnified by sentiment. However, from a medium to long-term perspective, how institutional funds adjust risk exposure during retracements and how project teams manage the circulating supply of their own tokens on exchanges will gradually shape a new supply-demand landscape, influencing the volatility characteristics and price elasticity of subsequent cycles.

For ordinary participants, a more actionable approach is not to engage in emotional trading around a single "whale transfer," but to establish a relatively stable observation framework:
- Continuously monitor the net inflow/outflow behavior of key on-chain tagged addresses (such as BlackRock, project funds, leading market makers) at different stages;
- Track the changes in holdings and net flows of leading exchanges, incorporating the structure of spot and derivatives positions into the overall view;
- Interpret this data alongside the macro environment, policy expectations, and cross-market capital prices, rather than viewing any single transfer in isolation.

Under this methodology, the recent large reallocation event by BlackRock and the 1inch fund appears more as a chapter in the ongoing long-term drama of institutional and market games rather than the entire story.

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。