Whales may be shy and intelligent creatures, but when you catch one in action it is a sight to behold. For example, consider the sole authority responsible for depositing 100,000 ETH in the deposit agreement for Eth 2.0 from 133 different addresses last week.
Deposits in the ETH 2.0 deposit contract have been bouncing lately, with 100,000 ETH being put into the Eth 2 deposit contract in a single day last week. It caught the attention of the crypto space and like most stories of activity in the chain, looking at actual transactions and the accounts associated with them can tell what happened. In this case, the inflow of 100,000 ETH appears to be due to a single Ethereum address and wallet responsible for channeling more than 258,000 ETH ($ 541.8 million to $ 2,100 per ETH) into the deposit agreement.
Looking for the mega whale that is mega bullish ETH and Eth 2.0
Given the relatively steady surge in the deposit contract since it was launched in December, it’s likely that a single company was behind last week’s unexpected surge. But can we prove it? Can one reasonably prove that there was a single unit behind the 100,000 ETH deposits?
Unfortunately, finding the transactions and addresses in the chain wasn’t a quick look at the “first page of Etherscan”.
In the hope of a quick win, the first thing we did was check the largest total deposits made from a single direction on the deposit contract. This strategy found an address that had recently deposited around 12,800 ETH in 400 transactions in the custody contract, but unfortunately the address was not of interest because the date of the transactions (June 20, 2021) is a few days earlier and the amount is only ~ 13% of the total of 100,000 ETH, although “only ~ 13%” in this case still exceeds $ 26.8 million (up to $ 2,100 per ETH). It is clear that if the 100,000 ETH came from a single unit, it was more discreet than a 100,000 YOLO one-way deposit.
Since further analysis was required, we downloaded the transactions in the Etherscan deposit contract for June 22, 2021 and loaded them into Excel. The dates were clear.
Of the data extracted for June 22, 2021, there were 1163 addresses that had a total of 32 ETH in the custody contract, 133 addresses that had 800 ETH in the custody contract and a further 11 addresses that had another multiple of 32 ETH.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, ETH 2.0 is the protocol change that Ethereum has been planning since its inception, moving Ethereum from a proof-of-work protocol to a proof-of-stake network. Proof-of-stake validators secure the network and receive ETH in return. A validator starts with 32 ETH and is currently acquired by sending 32 ETH to a deposit contract on the mainnet of Ethereum, the current proof-of-work chain.
The deposit is a one-way bridge, as the entire ETH amount including accrued interest can only be accessed after the network has been merged, which is currently unlikely to be done before the end of 2022.
With the same total deposit amount of 800 ETH on the same day from 133 addresses, our confidence grew that 100,000 ETH was coming from a single address. To confirm this, there had to be some similarity between the addresses. In fact, a quick glance showed that each address was funded by a common address.
Eureka! A whale watch.
The picture of our whale slowly became clearer. Let’s take a rough look at how they performed their surgery:
- At each of the new addresses, 800 ETH were deposited in the deposit contract: 25 deposits of 32 ETH. The remaining 10 ETH were sent to cover gas costs and after the deposits were completed, the remaining ~ 9.86 ETH were sent to a common address in each direction. These funds were eventually added to the custody contract.
- They laid the foundation for their plan with a loose transaction of 100,000 ETH (210 million to 2,100 USD per ETH) on June 16. When comparing such a large amount, the transaction was in no rush as it took 1 minute and 41 seconds to confirm. The gas price ‘somewhere between standard and fast’ has some serious vibes, “Well, I don’t want to pay too much for this transaction,” which is understandable to most plankton using Ethereum. It’s more surprising that it came from such a huge whale.
- With the 100,000 ETH in the new wallet, they financed 133 new wallets with 810 ETH each for a total of 107,730 ETH within 8 minutes.
Looking at the direction funded with 100,000 ETH, they have flowed through more than 258,000 ETH ($ 541.8 million at 2,100 ETH), according to Nansen. Without clicking on any direction, it appears that all of the ETH flowing through that direction has gone into the deposit contract in a manner similar to that described above, starting with a 90,000 ETH transaction on May 21st and a 49,990 ETH transaction on June 14th June.
Management is also showing no signs of slowing down. At this point in time, the management has been funded twice for 6119 ETH and 792 ETH. Given his obvious Michael Saylor “selling office furniture” mentality, this is almost certainly intended for the storage contract.
The 100,000 ETH transaction was funded by an OG Ethereum address that received the funds immediately before an address showing Nansen received 100% of their 302,000 ETH from a wallet that Nansen has identified as a Celsius crypto lender.
The OG address in question has transactions from September 2016 and if you look at their first ERC-20 transactions, it’s a journey into memory of r / ethtrader who have SPANK, KIN, FUN, OMG (airdropped – yet not sold ð ?? ???? ð ????) and many UPS. They also receive regular deposits from BOND under a contract that Nansen referred to as vesting, which suggests they are an early team member or an investor.
Its overall activity is massive, according to Nansen 1.72 million ETH in and out. There are a limited number of OGs with this type of money and belief on Ethereum, and they don’t look like they’re going anywhere anytime soon.