Although the Ethereum Foundation characterized the October 21, 2025 movement of 160,000 ETH — roughly $654 million at the time — as a planned wallet migration rather than a divestment, the shift triggered notable market scrutiny and community debate. On-chain analytics from Arkham Intelligence identified the transfer and flagged the recipient wallet for a history of significant ETH movements, including prior transfers linked to Kraken and SharpLink Gaming, which prompted observers to question whether the movement could precede liquidation. The Foundation’s co-Executive Director Hsiao-Wei Wang framed the action as operational, noting it followed routine security and treasury protocols, and emphasized that the assets remained under Foundation control rather than being sent to centralized exchanges for sale. The transfer occurred against a backdrop of organizational change, including developer departures and internal restructuring, which heightened attention to any large treasury actions, and former lead developer Péter Szilágyi’s public criticisms over compensation and management amplified concerns about governance. Szilágyi’s remarks, citing his six-year compensation as roughly $625,000 despite Ethereum’s growth, fueled calls for greater transparency and clearer explanations of treasury decisions, while Foundation leadership responded with public clarifications intended to calm stakeholders. Past Foundation transfers and documented sales, including smaller sales totaling 10,000 ETH to Kraken and SharpLink Gaming earlier in 2025, contributed to a pattern that observers used to interpret the October movement. Arkham Intelligence also estimated the Foundation still controls roughly $827 million in tokens across ETH, BTC, BNB, and ARB. Market response was measured but cautious, with Ether’s price moving around the $4,000 mark and intra-period volatility between $3,840 and $4,100, as traders weighed the possibility of eventual sales against assurances that funds remained in Foundation-controlled wallets. Community discussion focused on the tension between institutional fund management practices and decentralized finance principles, noting that large internal transfers, even when not sales, can create perceived counterparty or concentration risks. The episode underscored the importance of timely, detailed communication from the Foundation about treasury workflows and operational security, as clearer disclosure can reduce speculative pressure and help align stakeholder expectations while mitigating potential market disruption. The Foundation also noted that the transfer was part of a broader, scheduled migration of cold wallets to new custody arrangements. Such transparency is critical since on-chain analytics allow the community to monitor real-time wallet activity and assess market implications.
