On February 23, 2026, East Eight Zone Time, BlackRock transferred 1,134 BTC and 7,553 ETH to Coinbase and Coinbase Prime, totaling approximately 89.46 million USD, which was captured on-chain by several data platforms and reported by media such as Planet Daily and Gold Finance, quickly attracting market attention. The core controversy surrounding this nearly 90 million dollar transfer focuses on whether it signifies a gathering short-term selling pressure or a routine rebalancing of ETF and structured product positions. Meanwhile, after Bitcoin's drop on February 5, it has been consolidating in a narrow range of approximately 66,000–70,000 USD, and Ethereum has also maintained a volatile pattern. The market is in a state of "unclear direction but active liquidity," providing a representative sample for discussing the actual impact of this transfer in the current demand and absorption environment.
BlackRock Transfer Details: Nearly 90 Million Dollar On-Chain Transfer
● Asset Composition and Scale: According to reports from Planet Daily, Gold Finance, etc., this on-chain transfer includes 1,134 BTC and 7,553 ETH. Estimated at the time's price, the Bitcoin portion is approximately 75 million USD, and the Ethereum portion around 14.46 million USD, totaling about 89.46 million USD. This volume is not considered "super whale level" in the entire cryptocurrency market's daily transactions, but as a single institution and single batch transfer, it is sufficient to become the focus of market sentiment and public interpretation.
● Destination and Channel Attributes: Public information shows that these BTC and ETH are destined for Coinbase and Coinbase Prime. It should be emphasized that these two serve not only as spot selling windows for large institutions but also undertake multiple roles such as custody, over-the-counter matchmaking, market-making integration, and ETF/structured product redemption clearing channels. Therefore, "entering the exchange" technically does increase the liquidatable chips, but it cannot simply be regarded as a direct selling action until the purpose is confirmed.
● Strategy Positions and Long-Term Investments: According to a single source, BlackRock's related product Strategy recently increased its holdings by 592 BTC, costing about 39.8 million USD. Meanwhile, according to Foresight News, the overall cost of Strategy's Bitcoin holdings is about 54.56 billion USD, corresponding to an average price of approximately 76,020 USD per coin. These data indicate that BlackRock's investment in Bitcoin represents a long-term, deeply positioned strategy, and the current transfer scale of less than 1,200 coins seems more like a micro-adjustment of position management rather than a directional "liquidation" signal.
● Data Sources and Interpretation Boundaries: Data such as this transfer and holding costs mostly come from a single on-chain tracking entity or secondary media reports, and there has been no official clarification on specific uses. Therefore, in formal interpretations, one can only define information attributes with "according to a certain media" or "according to a certain source's statistics", to avoid inferring BlackRock's specific trading directives, selling ratios, or subsequent operational rhythm, and to strictly limit the discussion to the level of "technical conditions and possibilities".
Selling Pressure or Rebalancing? Two Interpretations from On-Chain Pathway
● Two Mainstream Interpretations: Opinions such as those from Planet Daily suggest that "such transfers may represent potential short-term selling pressure, but may also be related to ETF or structured product position rebalancing". The former emphasizes that assets entering a custodial environment to a trading platform technically equip quick selling conditions; the latter argues that large institutions often use transfers to trading platforms for ETF redemptions, basis arbitrage, or hedge balancing, which may not immediately lead to directional selling, and both interpretations together form the current market divergence.
● Institutional On-Chain Operations Path: From an on-chain perspective, common paths for institutions include: custody wallet → trading platform → redemption clearing or hedging account. In this chain, behavior transferring to platforms like Coinbase can be used for: meeting ETF redemption needs, hedging risks in the futures or options markets, cross-platform arbitrage, rebalancing multi-asset portfolios, etc., all of which require first transferring chips to places capable of matching and clearing. Thus, a single transfer does not equate to "placing a sell order"; it only indicates "conditions for selling or adjusting positions".
● Cost Range and Rebalancing Motives: Considering the average Bitcoin price of approximately 76,020 USD per coin for Strategy, within Bitcoin's current oscillating range of approximately 66,000–70,000 USD, it is overall in a state of certain unrealized losses or close to parity. At this time, rebalancing may arise more from risk control, duration management, and multi-asset correlation management traditional institutional logic rather than simple price gambling. However, as the briefing explicitly prohibits guessing BlackRock's specific trading orders, this article only points out that "there is bargaining space between cost and current price," not extending to any deterministic selling or stop-loss narrative.
● Distinction Between Technical Conditions and Actual Behavior: For ordinary investors, it is crucial to clarify two layers of meaning: first, technically liquidatable chips have increased, meaning that if they choose to sell in the future, it will be more convenient; second, whether a large-scale sell-off really occurs needs validation through subsequent trading volume, order books, and changes in ETF shares from multi-dimensional data. Viewing this transfer as "potential selling pressure conditions rising" is much more rational than simply labeling it as a "sign of impending sell-off," helping to reduce the emotional amplification risks of a single on-chain event.
Consolidation Range and Demand Zone: Reality Background of Bitcoin's Absorption Ability
● Narrow Range Consolidation Price Environment: According to PANews, since Bitcoin experienced a drop on February 5, the price has been oscillating within the 66,000–70,000 USD range, without any new trend breakthroughs or deep corrections. This "high-level narrow consolidation" pattern indicates that the bullish and bearish forces are relatively balanced in this range, and the market's sensitivity to macro and policy signals has increased, while the response to large on-chain funds flowing has also been amplified.
● Significance of the 60,000–69,000 USD Demand Zone: PANews notes that "most of the recent drop in Bitcoin has been absorbed by the 60,000–69,000 USD demand zone". This indicates that there is sustained and sizeable buying support within this price range, whether from long-term funds deploying gradually or programmatic funds automatically taking orders at critical intervals, enhancing the support and liquidity buffering functions of this zone. For potential selling pressure of approximately 90 million USD from BlackRock, it is crucial whether the market is within such a "deep demand zone".
● Single Transfer of 90 Million and Overall Liquidity: Comparing the approximately 89.46 million USD of potential liquidatable chips from BlackRock to the current high transaction volume and deep liquidity of the Bitcoin spot and derivatives market, in the active environment of the 60,000–69,000 USD demand zone, this volume can be seen as a "visible event needing attention", but in terms of scale, it is difficult to single-handedly reverse the mid-term trend structure. What truly determines the trend is often the continuous flow of funds and macro expectations, rather than the one-time large transfer itself.
● Discussion Boundaries and Avoiding Predictions: In this section, based solely on the publicly available price range and demand zone data, the potential absorption capacity and liquidity environment of the market are discussed, without making any predictions on specific price points, price fluctuations, or volatility paths in the coming days. Any attempt to equate a single on-chain transfer with "imminent crash/rise" exceeds the data's support范围.
Macroeconomic and Ethereum Pressure: BlackRock's Multi-Asset Perspective Consideration
● Macroeconomic Uncertainty and Position Flexibility: According to PANews, Federal Reserve Governor Waller stated that the judgment on whether to cut interest rates in March highly depends on the February employment data. This means there is still significant uncertainty in the macro policy path in the short term, and interest rate expectations and yield curves may continue to fluctuate. For large asset management institutions like BlackRock, maintaining flexible management of positions and liquidity in such an environment, through adjusting the weights and risk exposures of various assets, is standard practice rather than an emotional response to a single cryptocurrency.
● Institutional Pressure on the Ethereum Side: Regarding Ethereum, according to Deep Tide TechFlow, corporate Ethereum reserve companies are overall facing pressure, with the largest global holder of ETH, Bitmine, estimated to have paper losses of about 8.8 billion USD. This data reflects the pressure environment for institutional investors on the ETH side—long-term holders endure significant unrealized losses amid price volatility, making the sentiment more cautious and defensive. However, it should be noted that this loss scale is based on a single media's estimated paper figure and has not received multi-source cross-validation.
● Potential Implications of Simultaneous Transfers of BTC and ETH: In the context of macroeconomic uncertainty and rising institutional pressure on the ETH side, BlackRock's choice to simultaneously transfer BTC and ETH is more reasonably interpreted from the perspective of overall risk exposure and liquidity management at the multi-asset portfolio level, for example: making weight adjustments between different assets, reserving liquidity for potential redemptions, or preparing underlying assets for derivatives hedging, rather than simply being understood as a sudden reversal of bullish or bearish stance on a single cryptocurrency.
● Data Attributes and Interpretation Limitations: Concerning Bitmine's positions and loss figures, the briefing explicitly states that they come from a single source and are paper estimates, so in formal writing, they can only be presented as "according to a certain media's estimates", and specific trading behaviors or future selling plans cannot be inferred from this. Similarly, BlackRock's strategy on the ETH side also lacks detailed data support; this article only views it as a backdrop for institutional sentiment and pressure environment, without extending interpretations on individual behaviors.
ETF Funds Inflow and Outflow and On-Chain Transfer's "Dual Water Level Line" Perspective
● On-Chain Behavior Needs to Be Observed Alongside ETF Data: To determine whether BlackRock's on-chain transfer behavior leans more towards subscription-driven, redemption-driven, or pure rebalancing, examining just the on-chain data is far from sufficient. More crucially, it should be compared with changes in shares and fund subscription/redemption data of BlackRock's Bitcoin-related ETFs or over-the-counter products in the same time window to observe whether there is net inflow, net outflow, or stability in the ETF, getting closer to the real funding intent.
● Amplification Effect Under Large Positioning: Combining Strategy's approximately 54.56 billion USD Bitcoin holding cost with the large underlying scale, even if there are only slight share subscription or redemption changes at the ETF level, it often corresponds to significant on-chain adjustments in coin volumes. This is why we often see single transfers of tens of millions or even hundreds of millions on-chain, but when linked to ETF announcements or funding directions, they merely reflect slight fluctuations in net subscription and redemption ratios that are not exaggerated.
● "Dual Water Level Line" Analysis Framework: A more robust analysis approach is to observe two "water level lines": one for ETF fund inflows and outflows along with share changes, and the other for on-chain funds flowing to exchanges, net inflows, and net outflows. When the former shows capital being subscribed or redeemed, and the latter simultaneously demonstrates movements of position transfers or replenishing underlying assets, it can reliably assess whether liquidity is being drained, injected, or simply restructured and relocated between different vehicles.
● Conditional Discussion Amid Data Absence: It should be emphasized that this briefing does not provide specific net subscription and redemption data for ETFs, nor does it provide details on share changes for the corresponding dates. Therefore, this article can only present the analysis framework with a conditional phrasing: "if combined with ETF net subscription and redemption data, the direction might be better judged", and will not fabricate any specific ETF inflow or outflow values or ratios. All discussions about the linkage between ETFs and on-chain behaviors remain on the methodological and logical level.
Three Calm Conclusions on Institutional On-Chain Large Transfers
● Real Impact of Transfers on Structure: Integrating on-chain data and public reports, BlackRock's transfer of approximately 89.46 million USD worth of BTC and ETH to Coinbase and Coinbase Prime does technically increase short-term liquidatable chips and potential selling pressure conditions, which cannot be avoided. However, from the absolute scale, current market depth, demand zone absorption capacity, and its own hundreds of billions of USD holdings, this single event is far from sufficient to independently change the mid-term structure of Bitcoin and Ethereum, resembling more of a stage operation under macro and portfolio management frameworks.
● How Investors Should Use Such Signals: On an operational level, ordinary investors are better off viewing such large institutional on-chain transfers as a "risk warning signal rather than a direct sell signal". On one hand, they highlight that a certain type of chip has technically gained the possibility for quick liquidation; on the other hand, there is a need to simultaneously track the linkage changes in ETF subscription and redemption data, the location of the price within the demand zone, and macro policy expectations, only raising defensive positions significantly when multiple dimensions simultaneously indicate "liquidity tightening and pressure release".
● Compliance Boundaries and Cognitive Discipline: Throughout this discussion, no conclusive judgments will be made regarding the specific use of BlackRock's transfer, nor will predictions be made concerning the short-term price paths of Bitcoin or Ethereum; instead, an observational framework and analytical dimension based on public data is provided. In facing such institutional behaviors, maintaining a calm view of data sources, macro environments, and market structures is more important than following emotions to amplify a single event.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram Community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
