The ripples in the teacup are still trembling, and the ETH price has settled at 3165.99. Fireworks exploded instantly in three trading groups, and those novice traders who hesitated five minutes ago started shouting, "Hold steady at 3200, aiming for 3500." I closed all chat windows and switched to the on-chain monitoring interface—the alert system flashing with glaring orange warnings, and the abnormal operation graph of sixteen related addresses unfolding on the screen like an invisible hunting net. Most people focus on the market chart, only seeing the rise and fall of candlesticks and indicator changes. But through the perspective of the on-chain alert system, I see another story: at the moment ETH touched 3165, three textbook-level classic operations occurred simultaneously on the chain— a market maker placed limit sell orders in the 3120-3150 range across five exchanges, and three large addresses transferred ETH worth $47 million through cross-chain bridges to derivatives protocols. Most interestingly, all these operations avoided regular monitoring periods and were quietly completed during Asian traders' lunch breaks. The confrontation between technical illusions and on-chain truths often determines the outcome in an instant. When you're tangled up before the 15-minute MACD divergence, the on-chain data has already completed a full dissection of this "false breakout." In the 47 minutes before the price surged, a series of details ignored by traditional analysis were fully recorded—this is the power of data monitoring. The virtual and real aspects of the market are laid bare on the chain.

The most frequently asked questions recently are usually along these lines: "Is it worth going all-in on Ethereum now?" "The price broke through 3150; I went all-in. Can this wave double my investment?" "What if it drops? Will I lose everything?" Looking at these questions, I always want to advise everyone to stay calm. The game of ups and downs in the crypto market essentially tests not who has the biggest guts, but who can stay rational and strictly follow trading discipline. Today, I want to share some real insights—these are survival rules I’ve learned over the past 9 years through various losses. Whether this wave of Ethereum ends bullish or pulls back, as long as you adhere to these principles, you have a chance to come out unscathed. First, the conclusion: Currently, the risk factor for Ethereum is indeed relatively high, but from a technical signal perspective, the quality is still decent. This means "great potential, but little room for error." I’ve seen too many retail investors lose big at such crossroads, often not because they misread the direction, but because they are hijacked by market sentiment and abandon basic risk management. The issues usually revolve around three aspects: unwillingness to cut losses, frequent additional entries, and premature involvement. **The first core principle: Stop-loss must be firm.** The most common excuse I hear is "just a little more" or "wait a bit longer, it might rebound." But in critical moments like these, such thinking is often fatal. For this wave, my reference levels are 3145 and 2940. These two levels are not randomly chosen; they are based on the "failure line" derived from multi-timeframe technical structures. Once the price falls below these levels, the previously established technical resonance is completely broken.

On-chain analysts have detected a noteworthy trend: a major whale exchanged 4,013 ETH for 138.04 WBTC within the past 5 minutes. This transaction is valued at $12.59 million, with an average entry cost of $91,117.55 per ETH. Since yesterday, this whale has sold a total of 18,159.4 WETH and acquired 631.78 WBTC, totaling up to $56.8 million in value. What does this reflect? On the surface, it appears to be an adjustment of asset allocation strategies, but fundamentally, it is a precise gamble on market cycles—whales betting with real money that Bitcoin will outperform Ethereum. But what does this re-evaluation of risk and reward mean for the entire market? Some Web3 projects have entirely different ideas. They don’t ask whether ETH or BTC will rise more, but whether the transaction itself can generate positive-sum value. Take transaction fees as an example. Certain token projects automatically transfer transaction fees to educational funds, continuously channeling funds into global free education platforms. What does this mean? Traders participate in the market, children in need receive educational resources, project teams gain brand recognition, and the entire ecosystem appreciates. Zero-sum games turn into positive-sum cycles. The logic behind whale rebalancing is even clearer. Whales rotate assets based on macro judgments; these gains may correspond to relative losses for other holders. Meanwhile, projects that contribute to the ecosystem—such as offline educational achievements and global action networks—hold core assets that do not depreciate with Bitcoin or Ethereum price fluctuations. Instead, they appreciate as the number of beneficiaries increases. There’s no need for “rebalancing,” only a mission to “expand holdings.” This is not a declaration of faith but two fundamentally different games. One bets on the tides of consensus, the other on the certainty of human needs. The former’s chips are always shifting; the latter’s chips are settling.