According to multiple on-chain monitoring accounts and AiCoin data, between May 24 and 25, 2026, an unidentified whale, confirmed to be a single large holding address, sold approximately 15,000 ETH on-chain within a short period of 24 hours, amounting to about 31.12 million dollars. Over the course of nearly three days, the cumulative sell-off reached about 35,000 ETH, totaling approximately 72.3 million dollars with an average price of around 2,066 dollars. This intense selling pace rapidly amplified the market's sensitivity to short-term selling pressure and sentiment. Almost on the same timeline, on May 24, Vitalik Buterin published a lengthy piece on the X platform responding to previous controversies surrounding the Ethereum Foundation, emphasizing that the foundation will choose a path of "long-term survival rather than being large and comprehensive," becoming smaller, more long-term-oriented, and more opinionated, explicitly stating a reduction in ETH sales, allowing the foundation to transition from being the "center" of the Ethereum ecosystem back to one of many nodes, with his personal influence in the foundation also continuing to decline. The whale's rapid on-chain reduction aligns closely in time with the foundation's active commitment to "slimming down" and reducing its centralized role; however, there is currently no evidence to suggest a direct causal link between the two. On one side is a measurable short-term selling behavior, while on the other is a formal statement regarding long-term decentralization commitment. This tension itself is becoming the most worthy variable to be scrutinized repeatedly in Ethereum's current narrative.

24-hour sell-off of 15,000: The on-chain track of the whale's selling

According to monitoring from on-chain analysis accounts like Onchain Lens, which has been referenced by multiple media outlets, this anonymous whale sold approximately 15,000 ETH in batches within just 24 hours from May 24 to 25, 2026, amounting to about 31.12 million dollars; extending the observation over nearly three days, the same address cumulatively sold around 35,000 ETH, with a cash-out amount of approximately 72.3 million dollars calculated at an average price of 2,066 dollars. The selling pace was highly concentrated within these two days, displaying a typical pattern of short-term intensive reduction rather than a slow and low-frequency sell-off over a long period.

The identity of this whale has not been confirmed in public reports, and the specific wallet address has not been fully disclosed. It can currently only be determined that it is a single large holding address continuously reducing its holdings. Discussions in the market largely revolve around the scale and pace of the sell-off, while motivations are speculated to be “profit-taking,” “reallocation,” and “risk hedging,” without on-chain evidence pointing to a specific operational reason. This behavior of dumping tens of thousands of ETH over a few days is bound to be interpreted as a pressure signal on short-term price and sentiment; however, based on existing information, it is still merely an event of position adjustment for an individual address. During the same time period, the Ethereum Foundation's strategic transformation and commitment to reduce sales belong to another independent narrative. So far, there is no evidence showing a direct connection between the whale's selling and the foundation's actions.

The researcher exodus: The year the foundation faced scrutiny

As the whale adjusted its position on-chain, in the first half of 2026, several media outlets began to focus on the inner workings of the Ethereum Foundation: a group of researchers left around the same time, with some reports directly labeling it as a "wave of researcher resignations." However, until now, public information has not provided precise numbers or a complete list of those resigning, and the reasons for departure often remain within personal public statements and second-hand reports, more often stitched together from social media posts and interview snippets into a story.

As these reports fermented, community discussions quickly focused on whether the foundation's internal decision-making efficiency, resource allocation was unbalanced, and whether power was excessively centralized. The old question of "Has Ethereum decentralized or not?" was once again raised above the foundation. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin subsequently published a lengthy response on May 24 on the X platform, emphasizing that the foundation should not be the center of the Ethereum ecosystem but rather one of many nodes and explicitly stating that his influence in the foundation would continue to decline; he also pointed out that the foundation's board of directors does not consist solely of him, and he does not hold any special powers, with executive director Aya Miyaguchi leading most of the execution work for this adjustment and transition, while the board is in the process of expansion. Yet, under the premise that specific personnel, numbers, and motivations for the researchers have not been fully disclosed, these statements serve more to dilute the narrative of "personal dictatorship" rather than provide a complete internal reform explanation. Whether the resignation wave signifies healthy institutional slimming or a warning regarding the governance structure is still something that can only be sought in public opinion and fragmented narratives.

Vitalik announces his stepping down: The foundation moves from center to periphery

In the lengthy piece published on May 24, Vitalik effectively wrote a "stepping down statement" for himself. He repeatedly emphasized that the Ethereum Foundation "should not be the center, but one of many nodes," and candidly stated that his influence in the foundation would continue to decline, viewing this as an arrangement aligned with long-term goals—in his narrative, what truly deserves trust is a decentralized structure, not the continuous control of a single "founder." Corresponding to this point, he redefined the foundation's direction: choosing "long-term survival rather than being large and comprehensive," becoming smaller, more long-term-focused, and more opinionated, transforming funding, discourse, and resource allocation from a "big umbrella" into a clearer, opinionated puzzle piece that does not encompass everything.

The most sensitive adjustment falls on the funding level. Vitalik explicitly stated in the article that the foundation would reduce ETH sales in the future, directly addressing the market's long-standing concerns over “the foundation relying on ETH sales to support operations.” Meanwhile, he outlined a fairly specific path for decentralizing power: executive director Aya Miyaguchi is leading much of the execution work for this transition while the board is in the process of expansion, and he himself is neither the sole director nor does he enjoy special powers. To emphasize this point, he specifically noted at the end of the article that this long article represents only his personal views rather than the official position of the foundation's board—formally regressing from "decision-maker" to "spokesperson," and leaving the upcoming imagination space around the Ethereum Foundation to be filled by a more complex and diverse governance structure.

CROPS value bets: The new color of Ethereum governance

In the long article he stated represented "only personal views," CROPS was dissected by dimension, effectively rewriting Ethereum's value priorities. Anti-censorship/anti-capture refers to ensuring that any transaction is not rejected based on identity or stance under an environment where regulatory, commercial, and political forces are continuously encroaching, while avoiding a single institution or regulatory jurisdiction from exerting decisive influence over the network; open-source demands that core components be as open and transparent as possible, making code audits, forks, and alternative implementations the norm; privacy and security were placed together, with the former concerning users' rights not to be excessively exposed, and the latter pertaining to whether developers and users dare to entrust years of accumulated assets and applications to this chain.

As the foundation reduces its size and weakens its centralized nature, betting resources and attention on these four directions effectively sends a biased signal to the ecosystem: official funds are more inclined to flow toward underlying protocols, public goods, and projects that can enhance anti-censorship, privacy, and security attributes rather than pursuing all businesses that can elevate short-term metrics. This value orientation responds to earlier community doubts about "whether it is overly engineered, whether it deviates from the original decentralization,” concretizing decentralization into engineering goals of combating capture, ensuring open-source, and protecting privacy; on the other hand, it shifts Ethereum's long-term narrative from "who makes the decisions" to "which rights must be protected," bringing future conflicts surrounding regulatory games, user rights, and developer culture back to the clearer evaluative coordinates of CROPS.

Short-term sell-off and long-term slimming: How does the Ethereum story continue?

When we pull these abstract coordinates of CROPS back to reality, we see an overlapping picture in time: according to monitoring accounts like Onchain Lens, referenced by multiple media, an anonymous whale sold about 35,000 ETH within three days while at the same time, Vitalik proposed in the lengthy article that the foundation should become smaller, more long-term-oriented, and explicitly stated that it would reduce ETH sales in the future. On the surface, these represent two opposing forces: a single large address on-chain dumping chips into the market in the short term, while the foundation promises to tighten its selling pressure at a long-term level; but in narrative terms, they form a complement—decentralization is scrutinized in both capital and governance dimensions, with the whale's sell-off viewed by some participants as immediate pressure on price and sentiment, while the foundation's “slimming down” and weakened central role are seen by others as a re-assurance of Ethereum's long-term credibility. It should be emphasized that there is currently no public evidence showing a causal link between this whale and the foundation's transition; they are independent events merely pieced together by the market into a storyline. What will truly determine how this story evolves are several subsequent variables: whether this large address continues to sell off at a similar scale, whether the actual pace and transparency of the foundation's reduction in ETH sales can fulfill Vitalik's statements, and whether the progress of expanding the board and governance transformation led by Aya genuinely reflects the commitment of "the foundation is just one of many nodes" when dealing with issues like researchers’ resignation.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

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。