This week, on East 8 Time, on-chain monitoring data and disclosures from multiple media outlets have brought Trend Research, an institution controlled by Jack Yi, into the spotlight: this leveraged strategy, which once achieved significant profits of approximately $315 million in the ETH bull market, has now reversed to a cumulative loss of about $763 million. Meanwhile, the institution still holds approximately 356,150 ETH, valued at about $671 million at current prices, with a liquidation range falling within the high-risk zone of $1,562–$1,698. A model that was once seen as a "victorious template" for leveraged positions has now transformed into a potential source of systemic risk most closely watched within the Ethereum ecosystem.
From Bottom Fishing to High-Position Crash: The Gambling Curve
● In the early stages, Trend Research aggressively built positions in ETH within the $1,000–$2,000 range, taking on a large amount of chips with high leverage and concentrated bets against a backdrop of low market sentiment and tightening liquidity. Subsequently, as the ETH price surged to new highs, the institution completed a large-scale liquidation around $4,000, locking in a considerable profit of about $315 million. This complete transition from panic to frenzy became a textbook case of victory on-chain at that time.
● The early success led to a self-reinforcing strategy: after completing the top liquidation, Trend Research did not choose to conservatively rest but quickly reloaded on ETH in a new price range. The same high leverage and highly concentrated betting framework was reused intact in the new cycle, with position sizes and risk exposure even further amplified, betting on the continuation of the trend and time being on their side.
● The turning point came with a misjudgment in timing. Jack Yi publicly admitted that after the top liquidation, they "went long on ETH too early," meaning they were eager to stack long leverage again before the macro and liquidity environment had stabilized. This caused the originally smooth tactics to quickly fail in the new market structure, leading to amplified unrealized losses and soaring margin requirements, turning a high-yield curve into a high-risk exposure almost overnight.
● The story of Trend Research precisely illustrates the concept of "profits and losses stemming from the same source": the same leveraged and concentrated betting framework that supported its early windfall also reflected back on losses in a more severe manner after the cycle switched and volatility patterns changed. The same method that created myths in a favorable cycle exposed its extreme sensitivity to drawdowns, liquidity, and rhythm management during adverse conditions.
Three Major Liquidation Bombs: The High-Pressure Zone of Ethereum's Leverage Landscape
● From a broader on-chain perspective, there are currently at least three major liquidation risk entities within the Ethereum ecosystem, collectively involving ETH valued at over $1.8 billion. These high-leverage addresses have created a potential explosion zone across different price levels, forming the most closely watched risk map in this round of ETH deleveraging, providing a concrete "pressure map" for market sentiment and volatility.
● Among these, Trend Research stands out with a position size of approximately 356,150 ETH, with a liquidation price concentrated in the $1,562–$1,698 range, relatively close to the daily fluctuation range. This means that once the ETH price approaches this area again, both on-chain and off-chain will highly focus on its margin status and reduction actions, making it the "primary bomb" in market narratives, with impacts on sentiment and expectations far exceeding those of typical whales.
● In contrast, another significant risk zone comes from Joseph Lubin and two other whales with a combined leveraged position of approximately 293,000 ETH, with a liquidation reference price around $1,329, buried deeper in the lower range. This layer of positions is temporarily further from the current price, but if the price retreats into deeper waters, it will trigger larger passive selling pressure at lower levels, constituting a second layer of potential impact.
● In a lower range is a whale cluster monitored as "7 Siblings," totaling about 28,000–29,000 ETH in leveraged positions, with corresponding liquidation prices roughly around $1,075 and $1,029, belonging to the more distant high-leverage tail. This portion of chips is relatively small in individual size but could aggregate into a third layer of passive selling pressure under extreme market conditions, forming the "far-end tail" in the entire leverage structure, which should not be overlooked in a black swan environment.
$763 Million Evaporated: The Backlash of Leverage Profit and Loss Structure
● The currently disclosed loss structure shows that Trend Research's total loss of approximately $763 million is mainly composed of two parts: first, the approximately $315 million profit accumulated through efficient bottom fishing and high-position liquidation has been almost entirely given back; second, in the new round of heavy long positions, about $448 million of principal has suffered drawdowns. This combination of "profit zeroing + principal penetration" has caused its profit curve to exhibit a typical backlash trajectory of leveraged strategies.
● In contrast to the loss scale, its current position of approximately 356,150 ETH, valued at about $671 million, creates a stark contrast with its historical peak earnings. The reduction of leverage that could have been chosen to lock in gains and moderately reduce risk when the market was volatile has now been forcibly converted into "passively enduring drawdowns," making the profit and loss comparison exceptionally glaring on the chart and deepening external doubts about its risk management capabilities.
● Above the liquidation range, if the ETH price experiences severe fluctuations, the volatility will not just be a matter of price numbers rising and falling but will quickly translate into changes in margin pressure and amplified unrealized losses. Each dip will compress the available margin buffer, forcing the position holder to repeatedly weigh between "margin calls, reducing positions, and self-rescue financing," forming a negative feedback loop between technical and emotional factors, exacerbating market anxiety about potential liquidations.
● It is important to emphasize that, based on the existing information, it is impossible and inappropriate to deduce specific chain reactions of liquidation, precise triggering paths, or price outcomes. However, from the scale of approximately $763 million in losses and the hundreds of thousands of ETH in leverage, it is already sufficient to have a substantial impact on the confidence and risk appetite of market participants. For many observing funds, "who will be forced to exit first" has itself become one of the key narratives shaping price elasticity.
The Tension of Sticking to a $10,000 Target Amid Market Sell-Offs
● On a macro level, the judgment from Bitwise CEO provides a vivid annotation for the current environment: against the backdrop of high uncertainty, high interest rates, and the repricing of risk assets, "investors are selling off all liquid assets." In such an atmosphere, ETH is no longer just a vehicle for technology and narratives but is seen as one of the easiest chips to liquidate and the first to be reduced on balance sheets, bearing systemic selling pressure.
● In contrast to the conservative tone of the broader environment, Jack Yi continues to publicly reaffirm his optimism about ETH's long-term prospects, even explicitly stating, "I continue to be optimistic that ETH will exceed $10,000" in the future. This high-level anchoring of future prices defines the current drawdown in his narrative as "volatility noise" rather than a trend-ending, thus providing logical support for continued holding or even increasing positions.
● However, when "cash is king" becomes the market's main theme, the high-leverage long belief brings greater fragility at the funding chain level. A decline in asset prices means a contraction in collateral value, and the leverage multiplier will amplify this contraction into margin gaps and liquidity demands. Any firmly bullish stance in the long term, once lacking corresponding risk buffers and cash flow support, could evolve into passive liquidation or even technical default risks under short-term pressure.
● In the same round of plummeting prices, institutions and retail investors often have starkly different priorities regarding "faith" and "risk control." Retail investors can explain unrealized losses over a longer time frame, even comforting themselves with "just hold it long-term," while institutions must face pressures from funders, compliance requirements, and balance sheet stress. In cases like Trend Research, the tension between "sticking to bullish beliefs" and "meeting margin constraints" has been magnified to a level visible to all.
If Whales Are Forced to Liquidate: How Will Liquidity Be Pressured?
● Starting with the approximately 356,150 ETH held by Trend Research, and adding the position sizes of other large leveraged entities, one can imagine: if these positions experience concentrated passive liquidations within a similar range, the order book's capacity to absorb will face severe tests. A large number of sell orders hitting the spot and derivatives markets in a short time could significantly weaken order depth, making prices more sensitive to selling pressure.
● In practical operational paths, the risk exposure of on-chain collateral positions often first manifests in price changes and volume increases in derivatives and centralized exchanges. Price drops on CEX will be relayed back to the chain through oracle and liquidation mechanisms, touching or approaching relevant liquidation lines; conversely, the selling pressure from passive liquidations on-chain will feedback to exchanges through cross-platform arbitrage and liquidity migration, tightly locking both ends of the market into the same volatility cycle.
● In expectation games, "passive selling" and "preemptive selling" often intertwine. Once the market forms a consensus that "a large position may be nearing a danger zone," some participants will choose to reduce positions early or even short-sell to hedge or speculate. This preemptive behavior can lower prices before a true technical liquidation is triggered, amplifying slippage and short-term volatility, causing the originally potential risks to be partially realized in expectations.
● Because of this, these leading leveraged positions have become key indicators in the process of ETH's deleveraging. They are not only a matter of individual institutions' profits and losses but also resemble a set of real-time updated "pressure sensors," indicating how much volatility and selling pressure the market can still bear at the current price range, and under what circumstances deleveraging will shift from "controlled release" to "severe squeeze."
Lessons from a Failed Gamble: The Inevitable Path of ETH Deleveraging
● Trend Research's failed gamble has concentrated the risks of the "profits and losses stemming from the same source" leveraged strategy in the public eye: the same profits earned through high leverage and concentrated bets can also be consumed at a faster pace during a cycle reversal. It serves as a reminder to the market that in assets like ETH, which are highly volatile and deeply financialized, lacking dynamic risk control and rhythm management is essentially a "one-way gamble with time delays."
● At the same time, the three major liquidation entities represented by Trend Research, Joseph Lubin, and the whale cluster "7 Siblings" are merely a magnifying glass and sample window in this round of deleveraging, not the full picture of all risks. A large number of small and medium leveraged positions are scattered across different platforms and on-chain protocols, and their distribution and vulnerabilities are not easily visible at a glance, meaning that the large addresses already exposed are just the most prominent tip of a much larger leveraged structure.
● Looking ahead, whether ETH can initiate a new round of steady increases largely depends on the clearing progress of high-leverage positions and whether risk repricing is sufficient. Only when the market completes the digestion of excessive leverage, and price fluctuations are primarily driven by real buying and fundamental expectations rather than passive liquidations and panic selling, can a new rising cycle be established on a more solid foundation.
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。
