Since February 2026, Binance Life has rapidly risen from about $0.04 to approximately $0.85 in less than two months, with an increase of more than 20 times. At the same time, a highly correlated group of addresses began continuously withdrawing Binance Life from Binance and hoarding it on-chain, accumulating about 284 million tokens, accounting for 28.4% of the total supply, which was approximately $237 million at the time's market price. When the price curve and the concentration of holdings overlapped, several Chinese media outlets cited on-chain analyst Yu Jin's research, pointing to this address cluster having an on-chain connection with a whale entity known as Garrett Jin, and suspecting that it might be one of the so-called “BTC OG insider whales” or “1011 insider whales”, giving rise to the controversial narrative of “market control”, but up to now, there has been no formal recognition from regulatory or judicial levels. In this article, we will trace the on-chain transactions and holding patterns step by step to reconstruct the suspected operation methods of this whale market control, trying to answer who is designing the rules of the game in this 20-fold market, who is just picking up the tokens dumped by the whales at high prices, and what risks and opportunity boundaries this means for subsequent market participants.
The 20-Fold Surge: A Single Cluster Consumes Nearly One-Third of the Chips
From the timeline, this market could almost be equated to the positioning rhythm of one address cluster. Starting in February 2026, this cluster began repeatedly withdrawing Binance Life from Binance while continuously placing buy orders on-chain, initially to test the waters slowly, then increasing the pace during the price rise process, eventually raising the visible chips to approximately 284 million tokens—according to the official total supply, accounting for about 28.4% of the circulation. Based on the reported price, the market value of this part of the tokens is about $237 million, and a single address cluster holding nearly one-third of the supply theoretically already has the capability to influence short-term supply and demand in the secondary market.
Simultaneously, the price curve steeply surged: during the same period, Binance Life was pushed from about $0.04 to approximately $0.85, an increase of more than 20 times in two months. Media outlets like BlockBeats and Odaily Planet Daily presented this almost overlapping timeline side by side: on one side, a single cluster concentrated on withdrawing coins from the exchange and hoarding them on-chain, while on the other side, the price continuously increased with limited pullbacks. Due to the lack of more dispersed large capital trading traces, this combination of “a single cluster holding highly concentrated chips + short-term price surge” was interpreted by several media as a “non-natural market” with a high possibility of market control, rather than the usual market fluctuations driven progressively by ordinary buying.
On-Chain Detective Tracking: Clues Pointing to BTC OG Agents
Following the clue of “single cluster market control,” on-chain analyst Yu Jin began to trace the source of funds and behavioral characteristics: which addresses frequently transferred funds to each other, which large purchases were accompanied by the same batch of withdrawals, and which on-chain addresses shared the same exchange deposit channels at different times. According to his public analysis, the address cluster responsible for hoarding about 284 million Binance Life had obvious similarities in withdrawal paths, inflow and outflow rhythms, and overlaps with certain deposit addresses, with a whale entity known in the market as Garrett Jin. As a result, Yu Jin labeled it as a possibly highly correlated fund from the same system on-chain. However, Yu Jin did not provide direct evidence regarding identity; he could only infer from behavioral patterns and the degree of overlap in fund movements that it “might belong to the same control circle” on-chain.
Building on this, media outlets such as PANews, BlockBeats, and Odaily Planet Daily subsequently reported on this, packaging this “highly correlated” label into a more narrative story: if Garrett Jin is seen as the “BTC OG whale” who once exchanged tens of thousands of BTC for over 900,000 ETH, and suffered a loss of about $230 million during a liquidation on Hyperliquid in February 2026, then the cluster that is massively hoarding Binance Life may indeed be one of the agents of such “BTC OG insider whales.” Odaily and others further cited opinions that if the suspected related entity’s holdings of Binance Life in centralized exchange accounts are included, the actual controlling ratio may far exceed the on-chain visible 28.4%, but specific numbers and ratios have yet to be disclosed and lack independent verification. So far, there have been no official announcements or judicial documents confirming a legal or identity-binding relationship between the controlling addresses and Garrett Jin. The notion of “BTC OG agents” is more of a media amplification based on on-chain clues than a confirmed fact.
From Portfolio Adjustment to Liquidation: Garrett Jin's Extreme Bet
Before Binance Life, Garrett Jin had already made a name for himself in the market with a “portfolio adjustment bet.” In 2025, according to multiple media reports, he directly exchanged tens of thousands of BTC for over 900,000 ETH. In the prevailing narrative at that time, this meant actively giving up Bitcoin, considered a “safe asset,” to bet on Ethereum, which had higher volatility and depended more on narrative-driven dynamics. This rare-scale hedging adjustment was once discussed as a case of “one person rewriting the asset allocation textbook,” and consequently, he was labeled as aggressive and a risk-taker in the Chinese crypto community.
However, “success comes from leverage, failure also comes from leverage.” In February 2026, Garrett Jin’s enormous ETH long position opened on Hyperliquid was liquidated, reportedly with losses of about $230 million, pulling him back from being “the whale with no tactical oversights” to “a high-leverage player who can crash.” With the history of swapping tens of thousands of BTC for 900,000 ETH followed by extensive ETH liquidation, when an address cluster was discovered continuously buying and hoarding about 28.4% of Binance Life since February 2026, with a total value of about $237 million at market price, the community and media instinctively connected the on-chain inference of “possibly related to Garrett Jin or his affiliated entities” with the existing image of “extreme betting and high concentration positions.” In the absence of formal recognition, they interpreted the doubts regarding the market control of this Binance Life round as a high-risk gamble that this “whale trader” might initiate once again.
Under the Cloud of Market Control Doubts: Retail Investors Are Standing on the Edge
When an address cluster genuinely holds about 284 million Binance Life, accounting for 28.4% of the total chips on-chain, the “democracy” of the market is basically declared over. Even just looking at this 28.4%, any concentrated increase or decrease would form absolute pressure on the circulating supply; and media outlets like Odaily remind that if the entity’s potential hidden holdings at centralized exchanges are considered, the actual voice of authority may be significantly higher than this iceberg's visible point on-chain. For ordinary small buyers who are scattered and do not know each other, the entire chip structure has turned into a typical imbalanced pattern of “on one side is a single giant beast, and on the other are countless small fish.”
A more concealed layer of risk comes from the psychological illusion presented by the narrative. Binance Life, regarded as a community token with connections to the Binance ecosystem, has significant popularity within the Chinese community; many retail investors naturally misconstrue this “brand association” as a form of “safety net that won't have serious issues,” as if as long as the price is tied to narratives on leading platforms, risks are manageable. However, the on-chain facts are evident: the high concentration of holdings, and the control market controversy primarily voiced by analysts and media, while the project parties and related platforms have yet to provide clear public responses, lead to extreme information asymmetry. In such a structure, every sharp rise may be a result of large players utilizing concentrated chips and narratives to push prices to extremes; each decline may also echo the single entity adjusting its position, while retail investors stand on the edge of the knife, forced to bear the results without seeing the script.
Until Evidence is Established, What Choices Can We Make
According to AiCoin data, since February 2026, an address cluster has accumulated about 284 million Binance Life through withdrawals from Binance and on-chain purchases, accounting for 28.4% of the total supply, while prices have surged from about $0.04 to $0.85, an increase of over 20 times—these are the hard facts that can currently be confirmed. Still to be verified, however, is whether this cluster belongs to the same interest entity as Garrett Jin or the “1011 insider whales,” how many tokens it still holds on major centralized platforms, and whether these invisible positions will alter the true control ratios. Numerous media outlets have deliberately used terms like “suspected” and “possibly” in their reporting, which serves as a reminder: while on-chain clues and trading behaviors can raise strong suspicions, they are still far from being able to complete a “qualification” from a legal perspective. What’s worthy of attention next is whether this cluster will continue to increase its holdings even beyond current positions or quietly reduce its positions, transferring chips to new large addresses, and whether the project parties and trading platforms will change their previous silence and provide clearer disclosures. The difficulty of manipulating on-chain data, which is retraceable, means that whether it’s a regulatory investigation or market-driven deep-dive in the future, it is highly likely to continue along this line of evidence. Until evidence is established, treating on-chain analysis as a risk radar rather than a “verdict” is the relatively rational choice each participant can make.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
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
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。
