On April 25, 2025, there were two large movements of capital on the Ethereum chain that were interpreted together by the market, although they had opposite directions: on one side, the "ancient whale" made a large transfer to a potential exchange transfer address, and on the other, a large asset management institution was reported to have concentrated its staking of over 100,000 ETH.

According to on-chain data, an early whale who participated in the 2015 ICO and has held a million-level ETH for a long time transferred 10,000 ETH to the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392 on April 25, which was reported to be worth about $23.21 million. Notably, this multi-signature address had already deposited approximately 12,001 ETH to OKX over the past two months, which is about $24.62 million (according to techflow). Under the common chain of "whale address → transfer address → exchange deposit address," this transfer of 10,000 ETH was seen by some on-chain participants as a potential preparation for selling. On-chain analyst Aunt Ai also pointed out that the market generally associates such behavior with "potential selling pressure," although from an on-chain perspective, transferring to the transfer address or exchange does not equate to having already sold.

On the same day, multiple media outlets reported that Grayscale staked 102,400 ETH, estimated to be worth over $237 million at that time (according to techflow, Jinse Finance, etc.). In terms of absolute scale, this stake was approximately ten times the aforementioned whale transfer, and it belongs to a quantity that would significantly impact the supply of circulating chips in the short term. Since ETH transfers to exchanges usually increase the supply of chips that can be traded immediately, while staking into contracts or trust structures reduces liquidity for a period, these two operations on April 25 created a stark contrast on the supply side: one side possibly increasing the available chips for sale, and the other side comprising a large amount of chips temporarily locked up.

Regarding these two events, market interpretations quickly diverged: some traders saw the whale's transfer to 0x26c…B9392 as a sign of a new round of selling pressure, fearing that early chips might accelerate their movement to exchanges; others viewed Grayscale's concentrated staking as a signal that institutions were continuing to lock up ETH, tightening the supply of circulating chips. The discussion of transferring 10,000 ETH by a whale and Grayscale staking 102,400 ETH on the same day juxtaposed the contrasting narratives of "potential selling pressure vs. institutional locking of chips," becoming the starting point for observing changes in ETH supply and demand structure as well as market sentiment.

The Awakening of the Ancient Whale: A Movement of 10,000 ETH

The address being targeted this time is not an ordinary large holder, but one of the few "ancient whales" on-chain: it has been present since the early Ethereum ICO phase in 2015 and has held a million-level ETH for a long time, regarded by the community as a typical early deep participant. For the past several years, this address has seen almost no large-scale movements and, in the on-chain monitoring narrative, seemed like a "dead wallet"; however, entering 2025, that label began to be rewritten — the whale was no longer completely silent, and the frequency of moving chips had significantly increased.

From a pathway perspective, the change did not occur in isolation. From February to mid-April 2025, the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392 became an active destination: according to techflow monitoring, over two months, this address cumulatively deposited approximately 12,001 ETH to OKX, which translates to about $24.62 million, acting multiple times as a "transfer → exchange" role. This means that 0x26c…B9392 is not just a passive receiving address but has historically acted multiple times as a hub that transports on-chain chips to specific trading venues.

In this context, the huge transfer on April 25 appeared particularly sensitive: on-chain data shows that this early whale transferred 10,000 ETH to 0x26c…B9392 in a single transaction, valued at about $23.21 million based on reported prices at that time. In terms of amount, this is a typical "large-scale chip relocation"; combined with the record of the cumulative deposit of 12,001 ETH to OKX by 0x26c…B9392 over the past two months, the market naturally interpreted this newly emerging linkage as "whale chips moving along established paths towards the exchange."

This interpretation is not an isolated case. In Aunt Ai's analysis, similar routes like "whale address → transfer/multi-signature address → exchange deposit address" are generally seen in the market as potential preparations for selling: on one hand, ETH transferred to exchanges typically increases the supply of chips that can be traded immediately; on the other hand, historically, many selling actions have indeed laid the groundwork along this path. However, it is essential to emphasize that such on-chain behavior itself can only indicate "possibility" and does not directly equate to having already or necessarily sold — the follow-up actions of the transfer address have not yet fully unfolded, and what market participants see is merely the ancient whale starting to push some chips towards a path that "has led to OKX multiple times."

Grayscale Stakes 100,000 ETH at Once

In contrast to the ancient whale pushing chips along the "multi-signature → exchange" path towards a possible sale supply, on the same day, there was also a large action in the opposite direction — a centralized locking from the institutional side. As one of the largest digital asset management companies in the world, managing multiple assets including BTC and ETH for a long time, Grayscale's capital scale and historical positions in the ETH ecosystem make every on-chain operation it does regarded as an important signal on the supply and demand side.

Multiple media outlets (techflow, Jinse Finance, etc.) reported on April 25, 2025, that Grayscale staked 102,400 ETH that day. Based on the price at that time, the total value of this stake exceeded $237 million. Compared to the earlier-mentioned 10,000 ETH pushed towards an "exchange recurring path," this represents another type of large-chip action on the same day: a large amount of ETH being locked into staking-related structures, reducing the immediately circulating chip pool on the supply side, in contrast to the direction of "exchange deposits."

Regarding the ownership and pathway of this 102,400 ETH, the current public information mainly comes from third-party on-chain monitoring and media reports: it was reported that this staking behavior was attributed to Grayscale-related actions based on address labels after being captured by on-chain monitoring accounts, but the specific monitoring entities involved in labeling are classified as C-level information from a single source. Meanwhile, according to C-level information, no official statement has been found from Grayscale's official account regarding this staking, and the market's recognition and interpretation of this stake still rest on the level of "third-party monitoring + media reports."

Finer-grained technical details also need to be strictly distinguished between verified and unverified:

● Whether this staking was completed through specific product structures like "Ethereum Mini Trust" is currently only derived from a single-source C-level information and has not yet been cross-verified by multiple sources.
● The precise time window of the staking on April 25, as well as the specific calling paths between relevant addresses, are also mostly described in current reports as single-source information.
● Some address labels and interpretations provided by on-chain monitoring entities have not received endorsement from official channels and belong to analytical perspectives rather than authoritative confirmations.

Under this premise, the staking of 102,400 ETH and exceeding $237 million in scale can relatively confidently be regarded as "a large locking signal from institutional sides on the same day"; however, regarding secondary details such as "through which product structure," "exact timing," and "complete list of participants," it remains in a state of incomplete information. In both trading decisions and downstream content creation, a more prudent approach would be: to clearly indicate sources and credibility levels when cited, distinctly separating officially confirmed information from Grayscale and third-party speculative information to avoid excessive extension on unverified details.

On One Side Suspected Selling, on the Other Side Choosing Staking

On April 25, in the same public chain, two almost opposite capital paths appeared: on one end was the early address regarded as the “ancient whale,” transferring 10,000 ETH to the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392; on the other end was the reported increase in staking position of Grayscale, locking in 102,400 ETH in a single day. The former followed the traditional path of “whale address → multi-signature/transfer address → exchange deposit address,” possibly pointing to an increase in available chips on the exchange; the latter reduced the short-term liquidity of this portion of ETH statistically through staking contracts or trust staking schemes.

From the perspective of supply and liquidity, these two types of operations have different implications for the market structure but both carry uncertainties.
● On one hand, the large amount of funds transferred by the whale to the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392 essentially only changes the custody form. Based on the previous two months of on-chain records, this multi-signature address has cumulatively deposited around 12,001 ETH to OKX, so this new flow of 10,000 ETH was viewed by some analysts as setting up for potential selling: should it continue along the chain to enter the exchange's deposit address, it could theoretically increase the supply of chips available for immediate orders. However, funds entering the exchange do not automatically equate to market price selling; such behavior is highly correlated with potential selling activities but does not have causative necessity.
● On the other hand, the monitoring of Grayscale staking 102,400 ETH on the same trading day means that, during the staking period, this portion of assets typically will not participate in frequent intraday trading, essentially withdrawing from the circulating pool temporarily, placing constraints on short-term liquidity. However, staking does not equate to "never circulating," as it can still be viewed under product mechanisms and strategic adjustments for possible un-staking or structural changes.

Juxtaposing these two capital paths, we can see that on the same day, “whales possibly increasing available chips for sale” and “institutions temporarily locking in a large amount of ETH” coexist as entirely different chip behaviors, but the current public information is insufficient to support the narrative of "synchronous large-scale hedging events." Firstly, available data do not show any direct collaborative arrangements between the early whale and Grayscale; secondly, according to a single-source C-level insight, there has been limited discussion on overseas social media regarding these two events, and no mainstream viewpoint has formed that binds the two into a unified macro signal. A more prudent interpretation is to view them as separate local decisions made by different participants under their respective constraints, expectations, and strategies — one focuses on reserving pathways for potential monetization, while the other emphasizes managing positions and returns through staking — rather than elevating either party's actions as a single indicator of "market consensus."

On-Chain Signal Hedging: Trading Sentiment Pulling

On the same day, one side was the early whale transferring 10,000 ETH to the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392, which linked to the previous two months where this address had accumulated approximately 12,001 ETH to OKX; on the other side, Grayscale was captured by multiple monitoring entities staking 102,400 ETH. The former narrative indicates potential "sellable chips possibly being listed," suggesting the potential selling pressure; the latter corresponds to "temporarily locking chips," resulting in a decrease in short-term liquidity. These two opposing on-chain signals inevitably led to market tension in pricing short-term risks for ETH around April 25: some traders may raise the risk premium against downward impacts, while others may be more concerned with the tightening of supply side and increasing chip concentration creating bullish premiums.

From a microstructure perspective, large transfers and staking are typical signals that are "quantified and monitored." Fund managers and quantitative traders often will adjust their position structures on futures and perpetual contracts when they detect the chain of "whale address → transfer address → exchange deposit address":
● If they tend to interpret it as a precursor to selling, they may short-term increase selling, reduce leverage, and adjust short protective positions, thereby lowering the passive buy order prices on the order book, with funding rates and futures basis possibly skewed toward the bearish side;
● If they more strongly agree with the locking effect brought by "Grayscale's concentrated staking," some funds might choose to increase their bullish duration and more actively raise buy order levels, granting bulls higher premiums on funding rates and bases.
These different interpretations of on-chain signals will be reflected in the order book depth, short-cycle volatility, and structure of funding rates, resulting in a temporary "emotional hedge."

Downstream, when reviewing the market around April 25, it is essential to cross-validate on-chain events with price and derivative data rather than solely looking at a certain transfer screenshot:
● From the spot dimension, observe ETH's price movements on that day and the following days — including intraday volatility, whether there are significant long shadows on 1-minute/5-minute K-lines at key time points, to determine whether the market has made a significant directional response to "potential whale selling pressure" or "institutional large-scale locking";
● From the perspective of perpetual contracts, check if the funding rate of mainstream platform ETH perpetual contracts showed directional reversals or absolute increases on the 25th and thereafter, as well as whether the futures basis significantly weakened or strengthened, to identify funding repricing on long and short leverage;
● From the liquidity and chip flow perspective, closely observe the changes in ETH net inflow/outflow at OKX and other major exchanges on that day and the following days, discerning whether the “whale chips through the transfer address” path truly translates to a sustained increase in exchange-sellable chips, or whether it was quickly hedged and digested by the market. Only when the on-chain flows align with spot/derivative data will the judgments of "potential selling pressure" or "locked-in tightening" carry more statistical significance.

It should be emphasized that, according to single-source C-level information, there is currently still scattered discussion on overseas social media regarding the early whale transfer and Grayscale staking: only a few posts vaguely refer to related on-chain activities, and no high-heat unified narrative has formed around "whale selling — institutional staking," let alone packaging the two as a "synchronous major hedging trade." In the absence of a large-scale "narrative resonance" and official explanations, market participants largely match and regress on-chain signals and market data independently based on their models and historical experiences, rather than simply viewing any whale address or single operational action of an organization as an overall directional indicator.

In such an information structure, opposite-direction on-chain events like those on April 25 are more likely to be directly reflected in short-term risk premiums and liquidity discounts: whoever places more weight on the "whale's transfer to the exchange channel" demands higher compensation in funding rates, bases, and protective shorts; those who emphasize "institutional concentrated staking" are more willing to raise prices to take positions under conditions of chip concentration and tightened liquidity. Sentiment is pulled towards both endpoints, but the pricing power remains with the portion of funds that can continuously trace on-chain and market data and are willing to pay genuine costs for their assumptions.

Fork in the Road for Whales and Institutions

The contrast on April 25 itself is already quite evident: on one side, the early "ancient whale" transferred 10,000 ETH to the multi-signature address 0x26c…B9392, which had cumulatively received about 12,001 ETH to OKX from February to mid-April; on the other side, Grayscale was monitored by multiple entities staking 102,400 ETH. The former follows the standard path of "whale address → transfer address → exchange," which possibly prepares for short-term available chips; the latter phases a larger quantity of chips into staking or trust structures, compressing future circulating chips.

From a data perspective, this differentiation does not constitute any directional "ironclad signal," but can only be seen as a sample of chip management from two types of typical participants on the same day:
● For whales, the key is whether this 10,000 ETH is merely a one-time adjustment of positions or the starting point of a longer-term selling rhythm. If after the event, 0x26c…B9392 continues to frequently receive coins from that whale address and releases significant amounts to OKX or other exchanges, then the hypothesis of "increasing short-term available chips" will gain stronger evidence; conversely, if the subsequent chain remains quiet, this transfer is more noise of a repositioning.
● For large institutions like Grayscale, the continuity of the 102,400 ETH stake also requires verification through follow-up changes in custody addresses and staking contract balances. If similar-sized new stakes are witnessed in the future or adjustments in ETH holdings are seen across other product structures, it would justify including this behavior in the institutional long-term allocation rhythm sample rather than as a single "isolated event."

Therefore, the on-chain picture on April 25 is better seen as a risk alert and behavioral template: on one side is the potential to increase short-term floating chips through transfer to exchanges, while on the other is the institutional path of temporarily locking large amounts of chips through staking. What truly needs tracking is the temporal extension of these two paths —
● Whether whales continue to push larger-scale ETH to OKX and other exchanges through 0x26c…B9392 or new transfer addresses in the coming weeks;
● Whether Grayscale and other institutions maintain, amplify, or reverse their current staking tendencies, and whether the balance curves of their custody addresses and staking contracts show structural inflection points;
● Whether these on-chain behaviors correspond statistically to cycles of ETH price changes, for example, whether large deposits frequently occur near high levels while large stakes are more concentrated in periods of market volatility convergence or low sentiment.

In the Ethereum ecosystem, early whales and large institutions are themselves long-term important holders, and their asset movements serve better as inputs for periodic and structural analysis rather than as a single determinant of short-term prices. The 10,000 and 102,400 ETH on April 25 are a set of fork samples worth recording, but conclusions can only be provided by subsequent on-chain paths and market data together, with real value not being the "story" of that day, but the verification or refutation of the same logic over more cycles in the future.

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。