Ethereum supply falls to 2016 levels – Is ETH’s market unstable?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-09Last updated on 2026-02-09

Abstract

Ethereum's supply on exchanges has dropped to levels last seen in 2016, with only around 16 million ETH available, raising concerns about market instability. This liquidity decline coincides with high-profile losses, such as Trend Research's $750 million loss from unwinding a $2.6 billion leveraged long position. Despite the sell-off, some entities like Bitmine and the Infini exploiter have bought significant amounts of ETH. Currently trading at $2,077, ETH is down 37% from recent highs, with bearish momentum dominating and elevated selling volume. The thin liquidity could lead to aggressive price movements if large flows continue.

A string of recent high-profile losses rattled market confidence in Ethereum [ETH]… right as available supply fell. This is a recipe for chaos, and could lead to chaotic price moves for the token.

Here’s the rundown.

A $750M bet gone wrong

Trend Research, led by Jack Yi, built one of the largest leveraged Ethereum positions in the market. That was a $2.6 billion ETH long constructed using loans from Aave [AAVE]. The trade was a big bet on ETH’s upside, made bigger through leverage.

That bet has now been fully unwound.

Source: X

On-chain data showed Trend Research sold its entire ETH position this month, raising $1.74 billion to repay outstanding loans. The subsequent result was a realized loss of roughly $750 million.

The fund’s wallets now hold just over $10,000 in total assets, including $10,000 USD Coin [USDC] and negligible ETH exposure.

Next: Why PIPPIN’s 50% rally isn’t over yet – Is $0.32 next?
Share
  • Share
  • Tweet

Related Questions

QWhat was the outcome of Trend Research's leveraged Ethereum position and how much was the realized loss?

ATrend Research fully unwound its $2.6 billion leveraged Ethereum long position, selling its entire holdings to repay loans from Aave. The trade resulted in a realized loss of approximately $750 million.

QWhat is the current level of Ethereum's exchange-held supply according to CryptoQuant data, and when was it last at this level?

AEthereum's exchange-held supply has fallen to roughly 16 million ETH, which is a level last seen in mid-2016 during Ethereum's first full year of trading.

QHow does Ethereum's current exchange supply trend compare to Bitcoin's according to the article?

AWhile Bitcoin's exchange balances have rebounded to around 2019 levels, Ethereum's exchange supply has moved in the opposite direction, decreasing significantly to 2016 levels.

QWhat were Ethereum's key technical indicators (price, RSI, ADX, and DMI) mentioned at press time?

AAt press time, Ethereum traded at $2,077 (down 37% from recent highs), with a daily RSI of 31.22, an ADX of 50.01 indicating strong trend strength, and bearish pressure shown by -DI (35.77) well above +DI (6.78).

QWhich entities bought Ethereum during the market weakness mentioned in the article, and what were their purchases?

ATom Lee-backed Bitmine added 20,000 ETH worth $41.98 million on February 8th, and the Infini exploiter bought 6,316 ETH at $2,109 using 13.32 million DAI before routing funds through Tornado Cash.

Related Reads

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism. The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers. Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach. The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.

marsbit47m ago

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

marsbit47m ago

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit1h ago

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit1h ago

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

The commercialization of generative AI is facing a critical inflection point as a potential price war looms. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI is considering a significant cut to its token fees to compete with rival Anthropic, signaling a shift from a growth-at-all-costs model focused on token consumption. This move comes as both companies, reportedly losing billions on compute, prepare for IPOs, and as enterprise customers face "bill shock" from switching to usage-based token billing. Reports indicate poor ROI, with one analysis finding only 18 cents of every dollar spent on AI tokens generates user-facing value. The industry's initial phases—from flat-rate subscriptions to aggressive subsidies—have given way to a reckoning with real costs. Analysts debate the future: some predict a bifurcation between premium, high-cost models for complex tasks and cheaper alternatives for routine work, while others believe overall spending will still rise as agentic AI increases tokens per task. Notably, Chinese model DeepSeek's low-cost API is gaining traction with U.S. enterprises, adding competitive pressure. The core challenge is redefining value beyond token volume ("tokenmaxxing") toward measurable productivity ("valuemaxxing"), as the entire AI value chain, from cloud providers to chipmakers, feels the ripple effects of unsustainable pricing.

marsbit1h ago

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

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 S (S) are presented below.

活动图片