A dormant address from the early ICO stage of Ethereum, which has been inactive for nearly 10 years, recently transferred all 2000 ETH (approximately $5.85 million) at once to a new wallet. This represents a return on investment from an initial input of about $620 to the current market value, with a paper return rate close to 9435 times. The event itself has not yet shown a clear path of inflow to exchanges, but as a potential incremental signal on the supply side, it has been included in the observation list by on-chain monitoring institutions and traders. For investors, the more critical aspect is how to differentiate between "whale awakening" and "actual selling" through on-chain data, as well as how to construct an objective risk assessment framework in such events.
Core of the Event
On December 24, 2025, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, an old address starting with 0x3495, traceable back to the 2015 Ethereum ICO/pre-mining phase, initiated a large transaction for the first time in nearly 10 years, transferring all 2000 ETH held to a newly created wallet address. Based on current market conditions, this transfer corresponds to a market value of approximately $5.85 million, while the original investment of this address in 2015 was around $620. On-chain explorers show that these funds currently remain in the new wallet, with no evidence of entering marked centralized exchanges or other custodial service addresses.
In terms of verifiable data, the action is limited to "the old address transferring all 2000 ETH to the new wallet at once," and cannot be inferred as a selling behavior that has already occurred.
From a behavioral perspective, this address has shown no active outflow records since acquiring ETH in 2015, exhibiting a typical pattern of "complete dormancy for nearly ten years." The one-time migration of all holdings is more akin to "structural migration" rather than high-frequency capital movement in on-chain behavior classification. For market participants, the signal primarily focuses on the aspect of "extremely low-cost early chips being reactivated."
Incentives and Return Profile
According to the research brief, this early address invested approximately $620 during the Ethereum ICO/pre-mining phase in 2015, corresponding to the acquisition of 2000 ETH, with an average cost far below $1/ETH. Based on the current market value of about $5.85 million, the paper return rate is close to 9435 times, representing an extreme long-term return sample that spans a complete bull and bear cycle. Even without precisely detailing the price trajectories of each bull and bear cycle, this range has already covered the major market phases of Ethereum from a few dollars to over a thousand dollars.
The holding trajectory can be briefly outlined on the timeline: acquiring ETH through ICO/pre-mining in 2015, experiencing the first mainstream bull market from 2017 to 2018, the DeFi and NFT-driven market from 2020 to 2021, and subsequent rounds of severe corrections. However, there is no evidence of this address conducting partial reductions or reallocations during high volatility phases. It wasn't until December 24, 2025, that a record of a one-time transfer of all holdings appeared, making it an extreme case of "almost completely traversing the first ten years of Ethereum's history with zero active operations at the address level."
In a broader distribution of holding periods, many Ethereum investors typically hold for 1-3 years, focusing on strategic mid-term holding and periodic profit-taking. In contrast, this nearly 10-year dormancy period significantly exceeds conventional investment paradigms, aligning more closely with the statistical profile of "passive long-term holders." It is important to emphasize that on-chain records only capture behavior, not motives, so it remains unclear whether this long-term dormancy stems from active strategic choices or reasons such as technical issues or forgetfulness.
This extreme cross-cycle return from about $620 to $5.85 million categorizes this address as a minority sample of "ultra-long-term passive holding + one-time overall migration," providing a clear on-chain slice for studying the cash-out patterns of early participants.
Early Ethereum Chips in Historical Coordinates
From an overall structural perspective, the Ethereum ICO/pre-mining phase of 2014-2015 formed a batch of initial chip addresses with extremely low costs, which exhibited several different behavioral patterns over the subsequent decade: some addresses sold or migrated small amounts multiple times during the early bull market phase, gradually realizing profits through decentralized cash-out methods; some addresses showed concentrated outflow records near key high points, reflecting a "strong timing" active management style; and a considerable number of addresses remained silent for long periods, with few or almost no outward transfer records, classified as "dormant addresses."
Theoretically, these long-term dormant early addresses possess an "invisible ceiling" attribute on the supply side: they are outside the circulating supply and may be activated at any time with a low probability, becoming a potential source of new circulating chips. When the number of such addresses is sufficiently large and the amount held is considerable, it creates an upper limit expectation on the long-term supply-demand structure of the market, especially when prices reach new highs or approach historical peaks, discussions about whether "early chips will be awakened" typically intensify.
Compared to the common path of "gradual small cash-outs," the characteristic of the address starting with 0x3495 is that, on one hand, it has shown almost no outward flow records over the past decade, demonstrating absolute dormancy; on the other hand, when it does act, it is a "one-time migration of all 2000 ETH." This "long-term silence + concentrated activation" on-chain behavior reinforces the market's focus on the decision-making of extreme long-term holders to reorganize assets at a certain point in time.
In the framework of behavioral finance discussions, such patterns are often placed under various interpretations, such as: extreme long-term holders choosing to systematically restructure assets at a certain stage; changes in technical or security conditions prompting the address to migrate to new private key management or multi-signature structures; or even the original holder regaining access after many years. However, it is important to emphasize that current on-chain data can only present "when, how much, and where" transfers occur, and cannot provide any confirmed information about identity or subjective intent.
Supply Expectations and "Whale Awakening" Logic
Whenever an event like this "large address that has been inactive for ten years suddenly activates" occurs, the market typically quickly associates it with "potential selling pressure." The logical basis lies in supply-side expectations: once chips that have long been inactive in circulation are reactivated, it means that the portion of supply previously viewed as "frozen" may potentially re-enter the circulation system, thereby increasing the potential selling power. This expectation does not equate to actual selling but is a forward-looking judgment based on path probabilities.
From the perspective of on-chain path classification, the behavior of large addresses can be roughly divided into three types: the first type is internal migration between addresses, such as moving from an old cold wallet to a new cold wallet, multi-signature address, or a more secure custodial structure, primarily for asset management upgrades rather than immediate liquidation; the second type is transfers into already marked multi-signature, custodial, or DeFi protocol addresses, where the chips remain within the on-chain ecosystem, more related to yield management, staking, or leverage; the third type is transfers into centralized exchanges or other high liquidity entry points, which statistically correlate more with actual selling behavior and thus receive more market attention.
Based on the currently publicly visible on-chain data, this transfer of 2000 ETH has only completed a single jump from the old address to the new personal wallet, with no further path entering marked centralized exchanges or DeFi protocols, meaning the market can only view it as a "potential incremental signal on the supply side," rather than directly as an established selling behavior.
Structurally, such events are easily amplified by emotions because the cost of early chips is extremely low— in this case, an initial investment of about $620 corresponds to 2000 ETH, and the theoretically "psychological bottom price range" is perceived by the market as more lenient. Once these chips choose to cash out at high prices, the price discount space they can bear is far greater than that of later high-price buyers. Meanwhile, if these chips are merely undergoing secure migration or asset restructuring without entering circulation for a long time, the marginal impact on short-term prices will significantly diminish. Therefore, any interpretation of "whale awakening" events must be combined with subsequent on-chain paths, rather than relying solely on the "activation" itself for linear extrapolation.
On-Chain Monitoring and Risk Grading Methods
From a methodological perspective, such "ten-year whale awakening" events provide a good sample for constructing a standardized on-chain observation framework. The first step is the identification phase: using block explorers and professional monitoring tools, pre-set alert conditions for "long-term inactivity + large amount threshold," such as no outward transfer records in the past few years and current holdings reaching hundreds or thousands of ETH. When these addresses exhibit their first outward transfer behavior, the system can trigger an alert to prompt analysts to intervene and track.
The second step is the path analysis phase. Analysts need to distinguish the attributes of the newly received address based on the on-chain label database: is it an unmarked personal address, a multi-signature structure, a contract address, or a marked service address? In terms of path topology, key observations include whether funds undergo multi-jump splits, whether they quickly disperse to multiple new addresses, and whether a portion flows to clearly marked centralized exchanges or large DeFi protocols. The goal of this phase is to restore what appears to be an isolated transfer into a part of asset management or liquidity operations through the combination of "path + label."
On this basis, a qualitative risk grading can be constructed from low to high, categorizing behaviors like this one as "only seen as internal migration from old address to new address, not yet touching high liquidity exits," thus avoiding treating all whale activations as the same level of selling warning.
The third step is the risk scoring phase. In practice, many institutions set multiple signal dimensions for whale behavior, such as whether they enter exchanges, whether they frequently split in a short time, and whether there is an increase in derivative short positions, and weight these signals to form a comprehensive score. It is important to emphasize that such scoring is essentially a probability model, suitable for "risk priority ranking," and should not be interpreted as a deterministic prediction of price direction, especially in the absence of clear exchange inflows, where a conservative and neutral expression should be adopted.
Conclusion and Key Observations
Based on known facts, this early Ethereum address starting with 0x3495, after nearly ten years of dormancy, chose to transfer all 2000 ETH at once to a new wallet, corresponding to a market value of approximately $5.85 million and a paper return of about 9435 times. Currently, on-chain data does not show further paths for these chips entering centralized exchanges or other liquidity exits, so the event's significance on the supply side remains at the level of "early extremely low-cost chips being reactivated, with potential circulation possibilities."
What is truly worth monitoring next is whether the new address will exhibit splitting migrations, staking participation, DeFi interactions, or transfers to marked centralized exchange addresses; these objective actions will gradually determine the intensity of this fund's impact on actual market liquidity.
For investors, viewing such "ten-year whale awakenings" as an on-chain supply signal rather than a singular price prediction is more conducive to constructing an objective decision-making framework. In specific operations, on one hand, whale behavior can be assessed in conjunction with macro environments, Ethereum fundamentals, derivative holding structures, and other multidimensional data to avoid excessive emotional fluctuations caused by a single on-chain event; on the other hand, continuous attention can be paid to professional monitoring institutions' statistics on early address behaviors to understand "how early holders choose to cash out or continue holding at different stages" from a longer-term sample.
In a highly transparent on-chain market, every large transfer will be magnified in interpretation, but what can truly translate into trading advantages is establishing a data, path, and probability-based analytical method beyond emotions. This recent migration event of 2000 ETH spanning ten years provides a clear and typical practical case for this methodology.
Join our community to discuss and grow 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。
