Ethereum whale sells $55M in ETH – Can bulls absorb pressure?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-07-19Last updated on 2026-07-19

Abstract

Ethereum (ETH) faces bearish pressure, trading around $1,843. A notable whale sold 30,000 ETH (worth $55M) via an OTC desk, converting to USDC. Over the past week, whale distribution (462,631 ETH sold) slightly exceeded accumulation (448,638 ETH bought), indicating modest selling pressure. Exchange netflows also turned positive, suggesting increased ETH available for sale. Despite this, technical indicators like the Aroon Up (78) and a rising MACD show a remaining bullish bias. The price could drop towards $1,700 if selling intensifies, but bulls might reclaim $1,900 if they absorb the supply.

Since falling below $1,900, Ethereum has faced rising bearish pressure. The altcoin extended its decline to $1,800.

At press time, ETH traded around $1,843 after gaining 0.35% over 24 hours. It remained up 2% weekly.

With Ethereum struggling to maintain upward momentum, some whales appeared to be reducing their exposure.

Why did this whale sell 30K ETH?

Ethereum [ETH] whales showed signs of increased distribution amid prolonged market weakness.

Onchain Lens reported that one whale sold 30,000 ETH worth $55 million through Galaxy Digital’s over-the-counter desk. The wallet exchanged the ETH for USDC before depositing the funds into Coinbase.

The transaction indicated that this wallet exited its ETH position. However, one sale could not define wider market confidence.

Source: Swiss whale intelligence

Interestingly, this whale was not alone. Over the past week, 188 Ethereum whales shifted toward distribution, offloading 462,631 ETH.

By contrast, 167 whales moved toward accumulation and purchased 448,638 ETH, according to Swiss Whale Intelligence.

Therefore, distribution exceeded accumulation by 13,993 ETH, revealing a modest imbalance rather than aggressive whale capitulation.

Over 30 days, 661 Ethereum whales reportedly shifted toward selling. However, the dataset lacked a comparable accumulation figure.

Source: CryptoQuant

That selling also appeared in exchange activity, as Exchange Netflow turned positive after remaining negative for three days.

Exchange Netflow reached 3,100 ETH at press time, indicating that inflows exceeded outflows. Higher exchange inflows could increase the supply available for immediate sale, adding pressure to ETH’s recovery.

Can ETH withstand whale pressure?

Ethereum struggled to maintain upward momentum as whale distribution increased.

Even so, technical indicators retained a bullish bias despite ETH’s weak price action. The Aroon Up stood at 78, above the Aroon Down reading of 28. This indicated that ETH had recorded a recent high more recently than its latest low.

Source: TradingView

The MACD also maintained an upward trajectory and reached 35, supporting the remaining bullish momentum.

Together, these indicators suggested that sellers had not secured complete control despite rising whale distribution. If selling intensifies, ETH could fall toward $1,700. However, absorbing that supply may help bulls reclaim $1,900.


Final Summary

  • One whale sold 30,000 ETH worth $55 million through Galaxy Digital’s over-the-counter desk.
  • Whale distribution narrowly exceeded accumulation, while technical indicators retained a bullish bias.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat significant action did an Ethereum whale take recently, and through which platform?

AAn Ethereum whale sold 30,000 ETH, worth $55 million, through Galaxy Digital's over-the-counter desk.

QWhat is the net difference between Ethereum whale distribution and accumulation over the past week according to Swiss Whale Intelligence?

ADistribution exceeded accumulation by 13,993 ETH over the past week, indicating a modest imbalance rather than aggressive capitulation.

QWhat does a positive Exchange Netflow indicate for Ethereum's price pressure?

AA positive Exchange Netflow indicates that more ETH is flowing into exchanges than out, increasing the supply available for immediate sale and adding downward pressure to the price.

QWhat do the Aroon and MACD technical indicators suggest about Ethereum's current market momentum?

AThe Aroon Up reading (78) being higher than the Aroon Down (28) and the MACD maintaining an upward trajectory suggest that bullish momentum is still present, indicating sellers have not secured complete control.

QWhat are the potential price levels for Ethereum mentioned in the article if selling intensifies or if bulls absorb the supply?

AIf selling intensifies, ETH could fall toward $1,700. If bulls absorb the selling supply, they may be able to reclaim the $1,900 level.

Related Reads

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News10m ago

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News10m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit27m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit27m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手39m ago

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手39m ago

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, has launched a new full node software called Zakura version 1.0.0. Developed by Zcash co-founder Sean Bowe and Dev Ojha, with private ZEC donations, its goal is to enable Zcash to process over 50,000 transactions per second (TPS)—matching the scale of Visa and Mastercard—while maintaining full transaction privacy and verifiability. This addresses a key bottleneck, as Zcash currently handles only about 1 private transaction per second. Zakura is a fork of the Zcash Foundation's Zebra node. It features chain pruning and snapshots, reducing disk usage and allowing new nodes to sync in under two minutes. It also offers compatibility with the legacy `zcashd` client interface. The scalability challenge stems from the large data size of privacy proofs. Bowe's Tachyon project aims to use recursive proofs to reduce consensus-layer data needs from ~500 MB/s to ~100 MB/s. For wallet scalability, Valar Group is researching Private Information Retrieval (PIR) tech to allow wallets to fetch their data privately. Zakura supports fast block propagation and the upcoming "Ironwood" network upgrade (NU6.3), scheduled for activation around July 28th. Ironwood was created to contain a critical inflation bug discovered in the Orchard shielded pool in May 2024. The fix uses "turnstiles" to trap any counterfeit ZEC created during the vulnerability period within the shielded pool, preventing it from entering circulation and restoring supply integrity.

marsbit54m ago

Zcash's New Node Zakura Goes Live: Privacy Payments Can Reach 50,000 TPS, Aiming to Rival Visa and Mastercard

marsbit54m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片