On February 13, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, the custody address related to BlackRock's ETFs transferred 3,402 BTC and 15,108 ETH to Coinbase Prime, which, at the time's market price, amounts to a total scale of approximately $257 million, according to monitoring by Onchain Lens and Arkham. This large institutional transfer quickly attracted secondary market attention, with some views considering it a routine rebalancing step in custody and position management for the ETF, while others are concerned that it may evolve into a source of subsequent selling pressure, resulting in significant divergence in sentiment. Currently, neither BlackRock nor Coinbase has publicly explained the specific operational objectives or subsequent handling path. In the absence of key information, the qualitative nature of this event should remain cautious and be viewed more as a signal of on-chain fund flow rather than a definitive price outcome.
Reappearance of the 3,402 BTC Transfer Scenario
● The core of this on-chain action is the simultaneous transfer of 3,402 BTC and 15,108 ETH to Coinbase Prime. According to monitoring by Onchain Lens and Arkham, the relevant transactions were gradually completed on February 13, and at the time's market price, 3,402 BTC is roughly equivalent to $227.5 million, and 15,108 ETH is about $29.52 million, totaling nearly $257 million. This scale is significant in the context of daily institutional on-chain transfers, and the funds are clearly marked as coming from the BlackRock-related ETF custody address, giving it both "scale" and "identity" signal properties.
● It is important to emphasize that this is not an isolated event. On February 10, an on-chain record showed a transfer of the same amount of 3,402 BTC, along with a larger amount of 30,216 ETH flowing to Coinbase Prime, indicating a characteristic of two transfers of the same BTC scale within three consecutive days. This highly similar scenario deepens the market's judgment of "programmatic and rhythmic position adjustments" rather than a one-time abnormal behavior, and it provides a time-series validation for the interpretation of "custody rebalancing".
● In terms of magnitude, the two operations on February 10 and February 13 together exceeded the $500 million level of spot volume, but relative to the overall asset management scale of BlackRock's crypto ETFs, such a one-time transfer remains in the upper medium range but not decisive, resembling more of refined management within the existing asset structure. For the market, whether the short-term market can be directly shaken depends on whether this part of the assets quickly converts into sell orders, rather than merely staying at the "change of custody" or "market-making inventory adjustment" level.
Debate on Custody Rebalancing or Prelude to Selling Pressure
● According to Planet Daily's aggregation, multiple institutional researchers and on-chain analysts tend to interpret this event as ETF-related custody migration or position rebalancing behavior, rather than equating it to "executing or about to execute large-scale sell-offs". Under this framework, ETF managers and custodians must relocate inventories across different platforms and accounts to match redemption requirements and trading liquidity, with large on-chain transfers to the exchange seen as regular operations rather than a one-way directional betting signal.
● In contrast, reports from Golden Financial highlight that some market comments focus on the "potential selling pressure source" risk label, believing that regardless of whether it nominally belongs to rebalancing or liquidity management, the result is that assets originally "locked in the custody address" have been pushed into the tradable pool, which may be amplified into a bearish factor in sentiment. Especially when prices are in sensitive ranges, such news often intersects with technical trends and macro expectations, triggering fluctuations that exceed the actual actions of funds themselves.
● From the structure of ETF subscriptions and market maker operations, the inflow of on-chain assets to the exchange does not necessarily mean immediate selling. Authorized participants and market makers may need to transfer, hedge, and manage basis and spreads across different exchanges, which necessitates moving some custody assets into the tradable environment to execute hedges or provide two-sided quotes. However, objectively, once assets leave closed custody and enter the exchange's accounts, it means an increase in "potentially sellable chips", which, under conditions of tighter macro liquidity or a highly leveraged market, can heighten traders' sensitivity to downside risks.
How ETF Subscription and Redemption on-Chain Trajectories Map Prices
● In the framework of the spot ETF, authorized participants (APs) purchase ETF shares using spot BTC or ETH, or swap ETF shares for underlying assets by redeeming them. The typical process is: APs buy BTC or ETH on the secondary market or OTC, transfer them to a designated address of the custodian, and exchange for ETF shares; or they return the held ETF shares to the fund manager to redeem underlying assets through the custodian. The on-chain path between the custodian and the exchange carries the specific execution details of APs and market makers reallocating inventories and hedging.
● Combining the trajectory of the transfer to Coinbase Prime, various potential operational scenarios can be reasonably inferred: first, market makers adjust their spot inventory on Coinbase based on the trading activity in the secondary ETF market, to hedge the net exposure in ETF share transactions; second, institutions redistribute liquidity between different platforms, moving part of the assets from a single custodian to a platform that combines custody and trading functions; third, arbitrage strategies targeting cross-site price differentials and basis need to hold sufficient underlying assets on the exchange side as tools. Limited by the lack of official disclosures, any conclusion identifying it as "a single clear purpose" is an overextension.
● Referencing the similar transfer operation on February 10, it can be seen that while there were price and trading volume fluctuations on that day and the following day, without more high-frequency data segmentation, it is difficult to simply attribute price changes to a single on-chain transfer. Price movements are often driven by multiple variables, including macro expectations, derivative leverage liquidation, and fund flows from other institutions. On-chain transfer events and subsequent price fluctuations can have "correlation", but to rise to "causality", it's necessary to cross-verify with concurrent transaction details, market depth changes, and ETF share subscription and redemption data; simply using "one transfer = a wave of market action" presents a clear methodological risk.
Dislocation of Large On-Chain Transfers and Fund Sentiment
● Historically, large transfers from custody addresses to centralized exchanges are often viewed by retail investors as "bearish signs" because similar on-chain signals have indeed preceded multiple sell-offs in the past. However, as ETF, market maker, and institutional participation increase, the functions of on-chain paths have evolved from "one-way entry and exit" to a more complex inventory and liquidity scheduling network, making the traditional "transfer to the exchange = dumping" experience formula face obsolescence risks. The increased degree of financialization effectively amplifies the probability of these signals being misinterpreted and overtraded.
● Institutional fund operations generally follow quarterly, monthly, or weekly rebalancing rhythms that consider the volatility, correlation, and regulatory constraints of asset portfolios; whereas secondary market sentiment often reacts around intraday and even minute-level trends, there is a noticeable temporal mismatch between the two. The recent transfer related to BlackRock's ETF is more likely a mid-term response to changes in ETF shares and asset allocation frameworks, but under the amplification of social media and market software, it is interpreted as a short-term directional sign, leading the market to severely mismatch the interpretation of the same on-chain message in time dimensions.
● In terms of trading decision-making, a more operational approach is to simultaneously monitor transaction data, fund flows, and derivative leverage indicators. If after a large on-chain transfer, there is a significant increase in active sell orders on the spot order book, a sharp decline in the ETF secondary market, and a concurrent rise in futures positions and leverage ratios, then the probability that "funds are seeking liquidity to realize selling" significantly increases; conversely, if the transaction structure remains stable, ETF funds continue to show net inflows, and derivative basis and funding rates remain neutral, then such on-chain behavior is more likely merely "funds swapping within the system", and should not be seen as a singular signal to short or go long.
Comparison with Concurrent Large Fund Flow Events
● Almost simultaneously with the custody migration related to BlackRock's ETF, there have also been multiple comparable large fund behaviors on-chain, such as Jiuzi Holdings' approximately $60 million crypto financing inflow, and the ETH re-transfer related to the Mixin hacking incident. These events overlap in time, superficially forming a "matrix of large fund flows" on-chain in early February, which can easily be listed together in on-chain browsers and data panels, but the motivation structures, legal attributes, and risk pricing logics behind them are completely different and should not be conflated.
● Specifically, The asset adjustments related to BlackRock's ETFs are highly compliant institutional allocation behaviors, aimed at serving secondary market ETF trading and asset management; the financing from Jiuzi Holdings leans towards primary market capital injection, corresponding to medium- to long-term project development and subsequent potential unlocking rhythms; while the ETH migration related to the Mixin hack is essentially asset transfer and potential washout paths following a security incident. These three types of fund flows, while all reflected on-chain, represent distinct processes: one is structural reallocation, one is new capital, and one is the subsequent handling of a risk event, each impacting secondary market prices and liquidity through different channels.
● In terms of data analysis, this also highlights the importance of utilizing tagged addresses and path analysis tools. By distinguishing between custodial institutions, centralized exchange hot/cold wallets, project treasuries, and suspicious attack addresses, on-chain behaviors can be more accurately categorized into "transactional liquidity" (for facilitating trades and market-making services), "secure migration" (to address attacks or compliance risks), and "structural incremental funds" (net entry capital brought in by financing and subscriptions). Avoiding a "one size fits all" risk label when interpreting any large transfer helps reduce the noise of sentiment interference in trading decisions.
Rational Interpretation Driven by Data and Subsequent Observations
Overall, the transfer of approximately $257 million on February 13 aligns more with regular processes in ETF operations and custody, continuing the rhythm of the same scale transfer on February 10. However, it should not be overlooked that, from the on-chain status, the assets originally in the custody closed-loop have indeed been pushed into the tradable environment of Coinbase Prime, objectively increasing the potential circulating chips and providing conditions for possible directional trading in the future.
In the absence of official explanations from BlackRock and Coinbase Prime, simply characterizing it as "bearish" or "initiated selling" is an overreach. A more reasonable approach is to continuously track price trends, spot and ETF transaction volume conditions, ETF share subscription and redemption changes, and futures and options position structures in the coming days, using data to verify whether this transfer has been "digested" by the market into actual selling or remained at the level of inventory and liquidity management.
Future key observation points include: first, whether there continues to be cyclical transfers in a scale highly similar to 3,402 BTC, thus confirming the hypothesis of "programmatic rebalancing"; second, whether there are significant subscription and redemption fluctuations in ETF shares, as well as the rhythm of changes in the total volume of custodial assets; third, in the derivatives market after similar on-chain events, the intensity of fluctuations in basis, funding rates, and leverage ratios, which will directly reflect whether institutions and leveraged funds view it as a directional trading signal. Only under multi-dimensional data cross-verification can large on-chain transfers be transformed from an emotional topic into measurable risks and opportunities.
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。
