From October 12 to 16, Eastern Time, three signals highly watched by the market emerged from the Bitcoin supply side within the same time window: first, according to data from AiCoin, approximately $229 million net outflow from Bitcoin spot ETFs occurred in one week, with BlackRock's IBIT contributing about $165 million. However, compared to its historical cumulative net inflow of about $65.57 billion since its launch, this week's outflow ratio is still not high; second, during the same week, a wallet associated with MARA Holdings transferred approximately 1,000 BTC to Binance and Gate over about five days, estimated to be worth around $82.8 million at the time, and on-chain monitoring generally described this action as “suspected selling” or “suspected to be selling Bitcoin,” but the purpose and subsequent direction have not yet been confirmed by officials; third, an ancient whale address that built its position at about $130 per coin in 2013 and remained dormant for about 13 years recently transferred its entire holdings to a new wallet for the first time, corresponding to a market value exceeding $30 million. The simultaneous appearance of these three signals has been interpreted by many participants as a concentrated reflection of the short-term tight sentiment on the Bitcoin supply side. Whether this is merely a rebalancing pullback during a bull market phase or an upgrade towards a more bearish sentiment will determine whether the bullish structure can continue to stabilize over the next period.
ETF Weekly Outflow of $229 Million: Are Institutions Starting to Loosen?
According to public data compiled by AiCoin, from October 12 to 16, Eastern Time, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a total net outflow of approximately $229 million, with BlackRock's IBIT seeing a weekly net outflow of about $165 million, leading all products and primarily driving this week's net outflow direction. In contrast, since its launch, IBIT has had a historical cumulative net inflow of about $65.57 billion, so this week's outflow scale is only a small fraction of its historical net inflow. While the absolute amount may seem large, when viewed against the long-term funding curve, it is closer to a localized fluctuation.
It is important to emphasize that this round of statistics only covers a single weekly sample, and current public data does not provide a daily breakdown of other products or comparisons over longer periods, making it difficult to directly conclude a “trend reversal” or “institutions beginning to retreat.” In the current market environment, some institutional investors lock in profits at high range stages and reallocate weight, which is itself a routine operational logic of ETF products. Considering IBIT's still massive historical net inflow volume, this $229 million single-week net outflow is more reasonably interpreted as an internal rebalancing action in bullish funding structures rather than a confirmed systemic exit signal.
MARA Mining Company Transfers 1,000 BTC in One Week: Cashing Out or Daily Operations?
In the same week that the ETF funding structure showed rebalancing, new movements from the mining side also emerged on-chain. According to monitoring from Lookonchain, wallets associated with MARA Holdings transferred a total of about 1,000 BTC to Binance and Gate multiple times over the past approximately 5 days, estimated to be about $82.8 million at the time of transfer. Several Chinese media outlets reported this monitoring while commonly using terms like “suspected selling” or “suspected to be selling Bitcoin,” rather than directly classifying it as selling; currently, there are no public materials indicating MARA's specific purpose for transferring this batch of BTC to the exchanges, and the overall change in their holdings has also not been disclosed.
From the on-chain perspective, this batch of BTC can only be confirmed as “entering exchange wallets,” and whether it will be listed for sale or at what price range remains unknown externally. Combined with common financial arrangements in mining companies, regularly transferring some mined or held BTC to exchanges for operating costs such as paying for electricity, equipment, and salaries, or for cash flow and risk hedge management, is a common practice in the industry. Therefore, this transfer is more a “potential supply that may be used for cashing out” rather than a confirmed concentrated selling behavior.
13-Year Dormant Whale Awakens: $54,000 Turns into $30 Million
Unlike periodic transfers from mining companies, this time the market amplified a typical “ancient chip awakening.” According to AiCoin data, this whale address built its position as early as 2013 at approximately $130 per coin, with an investment of about $54,000 in Bitcoin holdings, and has had almost no large outgoing transfers over the last approximately 13 years, making it a textbook-style long-term dormant address. At current prices, this position is now valued at over $30 million, with its account scale rising from the tens of thousands to tens of millions, reflecting the result of an extremely patient hold through an entire bull-bear cycle. Notably, this address transferred its entire or part of its holdings to a new wallet for the first time about 7 hours before the related report was published, coinciding with the net outflow from the spot ETF and the transfers to exchanges by MARA associated addresses within the same week.
From the on-chain behavior itself, the activation of such long-term dormant addresses historically may signify a phase of profit-taking or merely be due to security upgrades, wallet format changes, or transferring custodial rights to institutional custodians for technical and compliance needs. Currently, there are no further records in public materials showing distribution of BTC from the new wallet to exchanges or other addresses, and whether this chip will enter market selling pressure still lacks on-chain evidence support. Therefore, a more reasonable definition of this whale transfer is “large potential supply re-entering the circulation view” rather than being directly identified as completed selling behavior.
Three Supply Signals Together: How Much Is Sentiment Amplified?
Returning the timeline to the same week, from October 12 to 16, Eastern Time, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a total net outflow of approximately $229 million, with BlackRock's IBIT seeing a net outflow of about $165 million, yet the proportion is not high compared to its cumulative net inflow of about $65.57 billion since its launch. Almost simultaneously, wallets associated with MARA Holdings transferred a total of about 1,000 BTC to Binance and Gate over approximately five days, worth about $82.8 million at the time; about 7 hours before the report was published, the ancient whale that built its position in 2013 and remained dormant for a long time also transferred its entire holdings valued over $30 million to a new wallet for the first time. These three clues all point in one direction: the previously relatively “locked” chips have been pushed towards potentially circulating supply within the same time window.
However, if these three events are simplistically pieced together into a “unified selling wave,” it is not supported by evidence. First, the ETF single-week net outflow data currently comes from a single channel's compilation and has not been cross-verified by multiple independent data sources, and its statistical scope and completeness carry inherent uncertainties; the MARA-related transfers were first disclosed by on-chain monitoring organizations such as Lookonchain, and media reporting generally uses qualifiers like “suspected selling” or “suspected to be selling Bitcoin,” and there are no public materials from MARA explaining the purpose of these BTC transferred to exchanges, thus on-chain “inflows” cannot be equated with having already sold. The transfer by the ancient whale is similarly based on a single monitoring source, and there are currently no records showing that the new wallet continues to distribute BTC to exchanges or other addresses. Without a more complete data chain to quantify the ongoing impact, it is more important to differentiate between “on-chain actions amplified by sentiment to form a selling narrative” and “established trend-based selling pressure,” viewing these three events as independent on-chain signals of the supply side that move in the same direction rather than presupposing they constitute a confirmed concentrated selling event.
What New Signals to Watch Following Short-Term Noise?
Based on the current materials, a relatively restrained conclusion can only be drawn: according to data from AiCoin, from October 12 to 16, Eastern Time, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a total net outflow of about $229 million, coupled with around 1,000 BTC (about $82.8 million) affiliated with MARA transferred to Binance and Gate, along with a single ancient whale transferring holdings valued over $30 million to a new wallet. These three supply-side signals are short-term bearish, but they appear more like rebalancing and repositioning among individual entities amidst high-level fluctuations, rather than confirmed systemic selling pressure supported by on-chain evidence. Future monitoring should focus on three types of variables: first, the net subscription and redemption direction and scale of ETFs in the subsequent weeks; only if large net outflows continue can the current bearish signals on the supply side evolve into clearer medium-term risk warnings; second, the balance changes and fund paths of MARA and related addresses, particularly whether substantial transfers continue to occur to exchanges or other addresses, which will directly impact the market's judgment regarding their “suspected selling” narrative; third, whether this ancient whale's new wallet shows further behavior moving closer to exchanges, such as continued fragmentation or transfers to centralized custody platforms. It is important to emphasize that current ETF funding data and whale activities mainly come from a single public source and only cover a one-week sample period; in the absence of more independent data sources for cross-verification and subsequent on-chain behavioral evidence, caution should be exercised when using strong conclusions such as “trend reversal” or “systemic selling,” remaining sensitive to data sources, time windows, and sample sizes, viewing these three events as independent supply signals that require continuous tracking rather than validated trend reversal judgments.
Join our community to discuss and grow 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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
