Connect with us

Crypto World

Did Trend Research Sell Ethereum at the Bottom?

Published

on

Trend Research's Portfolio After ETH Sell-Off.

Trend Research, an investment firm led by Jack Yi, founder of Liquid Capital, has sold its entire Ethereum (ETH) position, reportedly locking in losses of nearly $750 million.

The large-scale sell-off comes as Ethereum continues its broader downturn, with the altcoin down more than 30% in the past month. The price performance has reignited debate over whether ETH is approaching a market bottom.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Advertisement

Trend Research Sells Ethereum Amid Market Volatility

BeInCrypto recently reported that Trend Research began transferring Ethereum to Binance at the beginning of the month. On-chain analytics platform Lookonchain confirmed that the firm completed the sell-off yesterday.

In total, Trend Research moved 651,757 ETH, worth approximately $1.34 billion, to Binance at an average price of $2,055. The transactions reduced the firm’s ETH holdings to just 0.0344 ETH, valued at around $72.

Data from Arkham Intelligence corroborates the near-complete exit, showing residual balances of roughly $10,000 in USDC and minor amounts of other tokens.

“The total loss is ~$747 million,” Lookonchain wrote.

Trend Research's Portfolio After ETH Sell-Off.
Trend Research’s Portfolio After ETH Sell-Off. Source: Arkham

The exit followed a leveraged strategy built on the decentralized finance (DeFi) lending protocol Aave. An analyst explained that Trend Research initially purchased ETH on centralized exchanges and deposited it as collateral on Aave.

The firm then borrowed stablecoins against the collateral and repeatedly reinvested the borrowed funds into additional ETH purchases, creating a recursive leveraged position that significantly increased both exposure and liquidation risk.

Advertisement

As ETH’s price continued to decline, the position moved closer to the liquidation threshold. Rather than risk forced liquidation, Trend Research chose to unwind the entire position voluntarily.

Sponsored

Sponsored

While Trend Research pivoted to selling, BitMine has taken the opposite approach. Despite mounting unrealized losses, the firm has continued to increase its exposure, recently purchasing $42 million worth of Ethereum.

What an Ethereum Market Bottom Could Mean for Bitmine and Trend Research

The opposing strategies come amid a period of heightened market volatility for Ethereum. BeInCrypto Markets data shows that the second-largest cryptocurrency has declined 32.4% over the past month.

Advertisement

On February 5, ETH also slipped below $2,000 before recovering. At press time, Ethereum was trading at $ 2,094.16, up around 0.98% over the past 24 hours.

Ethereum (ETH) Price Performance
Ethereum (ETH) Price Performance. Source: BeInCrypto Markets

Sponsored

Sponsored

Amid the downturn, some analysts have suggested that Ethereum may be approaching a market bottom. One analyst described Trend Research’s exit as the “largest capitulation signal.”

“Such forced exits often happen near major lows,” Axel stated.

Joao Wedson, founder of Alphactal, also noted that Ethereum’s price bottom is likely to occur months before Bitcoin’s, citing the faster liquidity cycle typically observed in altcoins.

Advertisement

According to Wedson, some chart indicators suggest that Q2 2026 could mark a potential price bottom for ETH.

“Some charts already indicate that Q2 2026 could mark a potential price bottom for ETH. Capitulation has arrived, and realized losses are set to increase sharply,” Wedson added.

Sponsored

Advertisement

Sponsored

While no bottom has been confirmed yet, the possibility could carry broader implications for institutional sentiment, particularly as some firms choose to de-risk while others continue to accumulate amid ongoing market weakness.

If Ethereum is indeed approaching a market bottom, BitMine’s continued accumulation could prove well-timed, positioning the firm to benefit from a future recovery.

However, if downside pressure persists, Trend Research’s decision to fully unwind its position may ultimately be viewed as a prudent move to limit the risks associated with leveraged strategies.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Why Critics of Hyperliquid and Its Rivals Keep Facing Backlash

Published

on

Top crypto decentralized derivatives exchanges ranked

An analysis by Coinglass comparing perpetual decentralized exchange (perp DEX) data has sparked fierce debate and, in the process, highlighted rifts within the crypto derivatives sector.

The study exposed marked discrepancies in trading volumes, open interest, and liquidations across Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter. Users are left asking what qualifies as genuine trading activity on these platforms.

Coinglass Data Sparks Debate Over Authentic Trading on Perpetual DEXs

Coinglass is facing backlash after publishing a comparison of perp DEXs, questioning whether reported trading volumes across parts of the sector reflect genuine market activity.

Sponsored

Advertisement

Sponsored

A 24-hour snapshot comparing Hyperliquid, Aster, and Lighter shows that:

  • Hyperliquid recorded approximately $3.76 billion in trading volume, $4.05 billion in open interest, and $122.96 million in liquidations.
  • Aster posted $2.76 billion in volume, $927 million in open interest, and $7.2 million in liquidations
  • Lighter reported $1.81 billion in volume, $731 million in open interest, and $3.34 million in liquidations.
Top crypto decentralized derivatives exchanges ranked
Top crypto decentralized derivatives exchanges ranked. Source: Coinglass on X

According to Coinglass, such discrepancies can matter. In perpetual futures markets, high trading volume driven by leveraged positions typically correlates with open-interest dynamics and liquidation activity during price moves.

Exchange Liquidations
Exchange Liquidations. Source: Coinglass on X

The firm suggested that, rather than organic hedging demand, the combination of high reported volume and relatively low liquidations may indicate:

  • Incentive-driven trading
  • Market-maker looping, or
  • Points farming.

Based on this, Coinglass concludes that Hyperliquid showed stronger internal consistency across key metrics.

Sponsored

Sponsored

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the volume quality of some competitors warrants further validation using indicators such as funding rates, fees, order-book depth, and active trader counts.

“Conclusion…Hyperliquid shows much stronger consistency between volume, OI, and liquidations — a better signal of real activity. Meanwhile, Aster/Lighter’s volume quality needs further validation (vs fees, funding, orderbook depth, and active traders),” the analytics platform indicated.

Critics Push Back, but Coinglass Defends Its Position

However, critics argue that conclusions drawn from a single-day snapshot could be misleading. Specifically, they suggest alternative explanations for the data, including whale positioning, algorithmic differences between platforms, and variations in market structure that could influence liquidation patterns without implying inflated volume.

Others questioned whether liquidation totals alone are a reliable indicator of market health, noting that higher liquidations can also reflect aggressive leverage or volatile trading conditions.

Meanwhile, Coinglass rejects accusations that its analysis amounted to speculation or fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), emphasizing that its conclusions were based on publicly available data.

Sponsored

Advertisement

Sponsored

“Coinglass simply highlighted a few discrepancies based on publicly available data. We didn’t expect that a neutral, data-driven observation would trigger such hostile reactions,” the firm wrote, adding that open discussion and tolerance for criticism are essential for the industry to improve.

In another response, Coinglass stressed that disagreements should be addressed with stronger evidence rather than accusations.

The firm also argued that higher leverage ceilings on some platforms could make them structurally more prone to forced liquidations. This outlook shifts the debate away from raw numbers toward exchange design and risk management.

A Pattern of Backlash in the Perp DEX Sector: What Counts as “Real” Activity?

The controversy comes amid a broader wave of disputes surrounding Hyperliquid and the perpetual DEX market.

Advertisement

Earlier, Kyle Samani, co-founder of Multicoin Capital, publicly criticized Hyperliquid, raising concerns about transparency, governance, and its closed-source elements.

Sponsored

Sponsored

His remarks triggered strong reactions from traders and supporters of the platform, many of whom dismissed the criticism and questioned his motives.

BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes further escalated the feud by proposing a $100,000 charity bet, challenging Samani to select any major altcoin with a market cap above $1 billion to compete against Hyperliquid’s HYPE token in performance over several months.

The dispute highlights a deeper issue facing crypto derivatives markets: the lack of standardized metrics for evaluating activity across DEXes.

Trading volume has long served as a headline indicator of success. However, the rise of incentive programs, airdrop campaigns, and liquidity-mining strategies has complicated the interpretation of those figures.

Advertisement

As new perp DEX platforms launch and competition intensifies, metrics such as open interest, liquidation patterns, leverage levels, and order-book depth are becoming central to assessing market integrity.

This Coinglass incident mirrors how data itself has become a battleground amid a sector driven by both numbers and narratives. Therefore, the debate over what those numbers truly mean is likely to intensify as the perpetual futures market continues to grow.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

South Korea Prepares Crypto Market Probes Under 2026 Policy Plan

Published

on

South Korea Prepares Crypto Market Probes Under 2026 Policy Plan

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) said it will step up scrutiny of suspected cryptocurrency price manipulation in 2026, outlining a slate of planned investigations that target high-risk trading tactics, including “whale” activity and schemes that exploit disruptions at local exchanges, local outlet Yonhap reported Monday.

According to Yonhap News Agency, FSS Governor Lee Chang-jin said that the agency will target high-risk trading practices that undermine market order, including coordinated manipulation and schemes exploiting disruptions in exchange infrastructure. 

The FSS said the probes will focus on tactics that involve large-scale trading by whales, artificial price swings during exchange deposit or withdrawal suspensions and coordinated trading mechanisms using APIs or social media to spread false information. 

Under the plan, the regulator said it intends to strengthen automated detection by analyzing abnormal price movements at very short intervals and developing tools that can flag suspected manipulation “sections” and related account groups, alongside text analysis that can help identify coordinated misinformation.

Advertisement

Planned probes target crypto manipulation tactics

The FSS said it will investigate practices that distort price discovery, including schemes that take advantage of exchange deposit or withdrawal suspensions, a practice referred to in South Korea as “gating.”

These situations can trap supply on a platform, creating artificial movements disconnected from the broader digital asset markets. 

The financial watchdog also mentioned that it will track manipulation using market-order APIs and coordinated activity aimed at amplifying false narratives on social media. 

Advertisement

On Feb. 2, the FSS expanded its use of artificial intelligence-powered surveillance tools to monitor crypto markets, reducing reliance on manual identification of potential manipulation.

In parallel, the watchdog established a task force to prepare for the introduction of the Digital Asset Basic Act, the second phase of the country’s crypto regulatory framework. 

The unit will support the implementation planning rather than enforcement, including work on disclosures, exchange oversight and licensing standards. 

Related: South Korea tightens crypto licensing rules for exchanges and shareholders

Advertisement

Exchange incidents add urgency to oversight push

The tougher tone arrives after a series of exchange-related incidents put operational risk back in the spotlight.

On Sunday, crypto exchange Bithumb said it recovered 99.7% of excess Bitcoin (BTC) mistakenly credited to users during a promotional error.

While the exchange said no customer assets were lost, the episode briefly triggered sharp price swings and prompted compensation measures for affected users. 

The incident triggered a response from regulators. According to the Asia Business Daily, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) held an emergency inspection meeting on Sunday with the FSS and the Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU), where officials reportedly ordered a comprehensive review of internal controls across all domestic crypto exchanges.

Advertisement

On Feb. 3, the FSS said it was reviewing sharp price movements in the ZKsync token during a system maintenance window on Upbit. The regulator said it was analyzing the data and could escalate the review into a formal investigation depending on the findings. 

Upbit operator Dunamu previously told Cointelegraph that it has internal systems that also flag suspicious activities and a process that involves cooperating with regulators.

“When regulators request information, we can provide the relevant trading data without delay,” the spokesperson told Cointelegraph.