Ethereum whales' unrealized profits all turn negative: first time since 2019, is the market bottom approaching?

On June 26, 2026, data released by CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost attracted widespread market attention: the unrealized profit ratios of all major Ethereum whale groups have turned negative. The unrealized profit ratio for whales holding 1,000 to 10,000 ETH was -0.26, for those holding 10,000 to 100k ETH it was -0.21, and for the largest whale group holding over 100k ETH it was -0.05.

This is the first time since 2019 that all three categories of Ethereum whale groups have been in a state of unrealized loss simultaneously. Even during the deep bear market of 2022, the largest whale group holding over 100,000 ETH remained profitable. This structural change warrants a thorough breakdown.

As of June 26, 2026, according to Gate exchange data, the price of Ethereum (ETH) is 1,550.35 USD. During the day, it touched a low of 1,512 USD, maintaining a weak consolidation pattern with limited rebound momentum.

Why Are the Unrealized Loss Levels of the Three Whale Groups Significantly Different?

The unrealized loss margins among the three whale groups are not uniform, and this difference itself contains important market information.

The group holding 1,000 to 10,000 ETH has the most severe unrealized loss, with a ratio of -0.26. This group typically consists of high-net-worth individual investors and small to medium-sized institutions, characterized by relatively higher holding costs and greater sensitivity to price fluctuations. The group holding 10,000 to 100,000 ETH has a moderate unrealized loss of -0.21. This scale often corresponds to allocations by large investment funds or family offices.

The most noteworthy is the largest whale group holding over 100,000 ETH, with an unrealized profit ratio of only -0.05. This group's unrealized loss is the smallest, indicating that its average holding cost is significantly lower than those of the other two whale groups. The fact that this group remained profitable during the 2022 bear market implies earlier position-building and more prudent cost control.

The gradient distribution of unrealized loss levels among the three groups essentially reflects differences in cost management capabilities across varying capital scales. The largest whale group demonstrates notably stronger risk resistance, with the shallowest unrealized loss, nearing the breakeven line.

Why Did the Largest Whales Remain Profitable in the 2022 Bear Market but Turn Negative Now?

In 2022, Ethereum fell from highs above 4,000 USD to below 1,000 USD, a decline of over 75%. Even so, the largest whale group holding over 100,000 ETH remained profitable during that bear market.

The core of this contrast lies in the difference in holding costs. During the 2022 bear market, the average cost basis of the largest whale group was far below the market bottom, keeping them consistently profitable throughout the downtrend. Currently, however, Ethereum's price has fallen over 60% from its all-time high of around 5,000 USD in mid-2025. Although the decline itself is less severe than in 2022, the holding cost of the largest whale group has become inverted relative to the current price of 1,565.35 USD.

This means that even the whale group with the strongest cost management capabilities has seen its holding costs gradually rise over the past few years. As prices continued to decline, this group's profit buffer was completely exhausted, eventually turning into an unrealized loss in 2026. This shift itself indicates that the current price adjustment has reached the most resilient part of the market's cost structure.

What Does the Sustained Negative Unrealized Profit Ratio of Whales Mean for Market Structure?

The data shows that the unrealized profit ratios of whale groups have turned negative and have persisted for several weeks. This persistence is more analytically valuable than a single-day negative reading.

An unrealized loss itself does not directly trigger selling behavior—it reflects book value rather than actual losses. However, a sustained unrealized loss over several weeks gradually tests the psychological thresholds of holders. For whales with leveraged positions, persistent unrealized losses also imply higher margin pressure and potential liquidation risks.

From a market structure perspective, the collective unrealized loss of whales means that participants with the strongest capital advantages and information access are sitting on paper losses. At a micro level, this weakens the foundation of holding confidence in the market; at a macro level, it may lead to adjustments in position structures. Some whales may choose to hold and wait for price recovery, while others may reduce positions to manage risk. The interplay of these behaviors will directly impact the subsequent market supply-demand dynamics.

Does Whale Unrealized Loss Necessarily Trigger Massive Sell-Offs?

There is no inevitable causal relationship between unrealized loss and selling. On-chain data provides a counterintuitive observation.

During the recent decline in Ethereum's price, some whale addresses not only refrained from reducing holdings but actually withdrew ETH from exchanges to custody wallets. This behavior pattern suggests that some large holders view the current unrealized loss as a temporary phenomenon rather than a trend reversal. Moving assets from exchanges to custody wallets typically indicates a preference for medium-to-long-term holding over short-term trading.

On the other hand, some whales are under significant unrealized loss pressure from high-leverage long positions. The decision-making logic for leveraged positions is entirely different from that for spot holdings—persistent unrealized losses push up maintenance margin requirements, and once prices hit liquidation levels, forced closures are triggered.

Therefore, whether whale unrealized losses will evolve into massive sell-offs depends on the specific composition of positions. Whales dominated by spot holdings are more likely to wait and see or buy on dips, while those with a higher proportion of leveraged positions face more urgent risk management needs. Currently, both behaviors exist simultaneously, placing the market at a crossroads of competing forces.

Do Historical Patterns Show That Whale Unrealized Loss Reliably Forms a Bottom Signal?

Darkfost noted in the analysis that historically, when the Ethereum market tests whale conviction, bottoms often form concurrently. This observation has historical data support but requires careful interpretation.

2019 was the last time Ethereum whales were collectively in unrealized loss. At that time, Ethereum's price oscillated between 100 and 300 USD, subsequently climbing above 4,000 USD during the 2020–2021 bull run. From a rearview perspective, the 2019 collective whale unrealized loss did form an important bottom area.

However, the applicability of historical patterns needs to be assessed against the current market environment. The 2026 Ethereum market far surpasses 2019 in terms of scale, participant structure, and derivative complexity. Whether the bottom signal from that time remains valid now depends on the interplay of multiple variables—including the macroeconomic environment, on-chain activity levels, and external factors such as ETF fund flows.

A more accurate positioning of collective whale unrealized loss is as a "necessary condition" rather than a "sufficient condition"—it is an important reference indicator that the market is approaching a bottom area, but not definitive evidence that a bottom has already formed.

What Are the Drivers Behind Ethereum's Price Drop to 1,565 USD?

As of June 26, 2026, Ethereum's price is under pressure around 1,565 USD. This price level is more than 60% below the highs from mid-2025.

From a technical structure perspective, the MA5 and MA10 are near 1,568.88 USD and 1,567.82 USD respectively, both slightly above the current price, while the MA30 is around 1,604.05 USD. Short-term moving averages are exerting downward pressure, and intermediate-term resistance is also apparent. The EMA Cross (9,26) levels of 1,572.28 USD and 1,594.72 USD also indicate that the current rebound has not reversed the weak structure.

From a broader perspective, Ethereum's sustained decline is related to multiple factors: on the macro front, the US PCE for May rose to 4.1% year-over-year, continuing to suppress market risk appetite; on the industry front, news that the Ethereum Foundation recently laid off 20% of its staff has raised concerns about ecosystem development prospects; on the capital front, spot Ethereum ETFs have recorded outflows for seven consecutive weeks.

These factors collectively form the fundamental backdrop for Ethereum's current price action. The whale unrealized loss is occurring against this macro and micro overlay.

Why Is There a Divergence Between On-Chain Activity and Price Trends?

One noteworthy phenomenon is that while Ethereum's price continues to decline, on-chain activity has not shrunk in tandem.

During the recent market decline, transaction volume on Ethereum decentralized exchanges (DEXs) rose from $0.9 billion on June 22 to $1.3 billion on June 24, an increase of about 36%. The total volume of stablecoin transactions on Ethereum remained stable at approximately $158 billion. Dollar-backed assets held on-chain did not show large-scale migration due to the price drop.

This divergence between price and on-chain activity partly explains why whale groups, despite paper losses, have not engaged in large-scale panic on-chain transfers. The network is still being used, transactions are still occurring, and value settlement is still taking place. The relative robustness of on-chain fundamentals provides underlying support for the price battle at current levels.

Summary

For the first time since 2019, all three categories of Ethereum whale groups are in a state of unrealized loss. This on-chain data point carries important market signal significance. The largest whale group, which remained profitable during the 2022 bear market, has now turned to an unrealized profit ratio of -0.05 at current price levels, reflecting the special depth and structural nature of this downturn.

The sustained whale unrealized loss over several weeks is both a test of conviction among large holders and a process of rebalancing market supply and demand. Historical experience suggests this signal often accompanies bottom areas, but whether the market has confirmed a bottom still requires comprehensive judgment based on on-chain activity, capital flows, and the macro environment.

As of June 26, 2026, Ethereum's price is trading around 1,565 USD, with the technical side still in a weak consolidation phase. The next moves of whale groups—whether to continue holding, buy the dip, or cut losses—will be a key variable influencing short-term market direction.

FAQ

Q: What is the criterion for determining Ethereum whale unrealized loss?

Unrealized loss is calculated based on the Unrealized Profit Ratio, which is the difference between the current price and the holding cost divided by the holding cost. When this ratio is negative, it means that at the current market price, the book value of the position is lower than the acquisition cost.

Q: Why do the three whale groups have different levels of unrealized loss?

The degree of unrealized loss directly reflects the difference in average holding costs among groups. The largest whale group (holding over 100,000 ETH) has the shallowest unrealized loss (-0.05), indicating the lowest cost basis; the group holding 1,000 to 10,000 ETH has the deepest unrealized loss (-0.26), indicating relatively higher holding costs.

Q: Does whale unrealized loss mean the market has bottomed?

Historical data shows that collective whale unrealized loss often coincides with bottom areas, but this is not a definitive signal that a bottom has formed. Investors should make comprehensive judgments using multiple dimensions such as on-chain activity, capital flows, and the macro economy.

Q: What is the market impact of sustained unrealized loss over several weeks?

Prolonged unrealized loss gradually tests holders' psychological thresholds and risk management capabilities. For spot holders, they may choose to hold or buy on dips; for leveraged holders, sustained unrealized loss may trigger forced liquidations. The interplay of these forces will affect market direction.