Philadelphia Fed Study Finds Bitcoin Wallets Follow Whale Alerts Faster Than Ethereum

A new Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia study found that public whale alerts were followed by a fast, broad response from smaller Bitcoin wallets—but not by the same kind of participation shift on Ethereum.

The contrast is striking. In Bitcoin, non-whale wallets moved in the same direction as the alerted whale most sharply during the first 15 minutes.

On Ethereum, participation across wallet groups remained comparatively stable, with the clearest same-direction response concentrated among the largest non-whale sellers.

Bitcoin wallets moved quickly after public alerts.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper matched public Whale Alert notification times with transaction-level data for Bitcoin, Ethereum and Wrapped Bitcoin through the end of 2025.

The researchers defined a whale wallet as one that had made at least one transfer worth more than $50 million, while excluding large wallets linked to exchanges or smart contracts. After removing events crowded by another whale transaction within two hours, the sample included 6,645 Bitcoin transactions and 5,075 Ethereum transactions.

The paper tested whether those transfers changed which non-whale wallets became active, whether smaller participants traded in the whale’s direction, and whether short-term volatility changed. It also compared Ethereum behavior before and after the network’s 2022 shift to proof of stake.

The network split persisted across that transition. That result weighs against consensus design alone as the explanation and points toward deeper differences in how activity is routed across the two ecosystems.

CryptoSlate reported that small Bitcoin-wallet buy participation rose 14.81 percentage points after whale buys, while medium-wallet participation increased 23.72 points. After whale sells, same-direction selling rose 12.95 points among small wallets and 29.52 points among medium wallets.

The burst did not last. Activity began moving back toward normal within an hour, which suggests the public alert was most useful as a short-lived coordination signal rather than a durable change in market behavior.

Bitcoin volatility also rose temporarily at short horizons around the alerts. By 24 hours, that effect had reversed, reinforcing the study’s picture of a sharp but fading response.

The response was strongest immediately after notification, when the public signal was newest and most actionable.

Ethereum’s structure produced a different response.

The Ethereum results were much quieter. The study found no similarly broad jump in participation across wallet sizes.

The strongest immediate response appeared among the largest non-whale sellers, while a medium-wallet result reached only the study’s weaker significance threshold.

That does not mean Ethereum is inactive or less sophisticated. Current market commentary can still move quickly around large positions and expectations.

3/
Tom DeMark, founder of DeMark Analytics and a capital markets advisor to Bitmine is expecting ETH to make a sharp upward move in coming weeks.

According to Tom DeMark,

➡️ “In August, ETH moved sideways without a downside break and the 12-day metric expired, which implies a… pic.twitter.com/CucGmTxlDg

— Bitmine (NYSE-BMNR) $ETH $BMNP (@BitMNR) September 8, 2026

The researchers instead point to market structure. Ethereum activity often passes through exchanges, smart contracts and layer-2 networks, where many users’ actions can be bundled into larger balance movements.

A large transfer can therefore carry a less direct signal than it appears to carry on Bitcoin.

Blockstream’s current statement about stolen Bitcoin on the Liquid Network is a useful reminder that large visible transfers can also reflect operational or security events—not an investor’s bullish or bearish trade.

To those responsible for the theft of bitcoin from the Liquid Network:

Blockstream will not pay a ransom for the return of stolen funds. Taking assets without authorization and withholding their return is a crime, not responsible disclosure. It is not white-hat activity. It is…

— Blockstream (@Blockstream) September 11, 2026

The study shows association, not causation.

The authors are careful about the limits. Wallet-size groups are transaction-based proxies, one owner may control multiple addresses, and exchange activity was excluded.

The data shows what happened around public alerts; it does not prove that every wallet moved because it saw a notification.

Even with those limits, the result matters. Traders often treat every large transfer as if it carries the same message across every chain.

This study suggests the market’s reaction depends heavily on where the transfer happens—and on how that network routes activity beneath the surface.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.