Between January and February, multiple wallets linked to Bitcoin miners moved approximately 48,800 BTC, valued at over $3 billion. However, not all of these movements were due to massive liquidations; rather, they were transfers between treasuries and platforms.
On February 5, the market registered an unusual movement: 28,605 BTC left addresses associated with miners in a single day, equivalent to about $1.8 billion. The following day, another 20,169 BTC ($1.4 billion) were added. In total, almost 49,000 BTC changed hands in just 48 hours, one of the largest movements since the end of 2014. At first glance, the magnitude raised concerns about a possible wave of mass selling.
However, the volume transferred far exceeded recent production. In January of this year, eight publicly reporting miners mined a total of about 2,377 BTC, a figure much lower than the transfers observed in February. This difference made it clear that most of the coins moved were not newly mined BTC sold immediately on the spot market, but rather part of accumulated reserves.
At the corporate level, the data showed a more nuanced reality. CleanSpark, for example, mined 573 BTC in January but sold only 158.63, maintaining a reserve of 13,513 BTC. Cango produced 496.35 BTC, sold 550.03, and then disposed of an additional 4,451 BTC for $305 million to pay off a Bitcoin-backed loan and fund its shift toward AI infrastructure. Other firms, such as Canaan and LM Funding, increased their reserves, while Hive used pledging schemes on 480 BTC to obtain liquidity without selling directly on the market.
Not all outflows imply sales: details of the movements
In detail, the key point is that not every on-chain movement equates to immediate selling pressure. Some outflows corresponded to internal treasury transfers, balance reorganizations, or movements toward collateralized structures. In other words, many of those coins didn’t reach exchanges for public liquidation; instead, they were used as collateral or strategically reallocated.
Furthermore, the market context was already delicate. Bitcoin had fallen to around $63,300 on January 5 and suffered a decline of nearly 15% on January 29. This was compounded by outflows from US spot ETFs and the largest mining difficulty adjustment since 2021 (an 11–14% drop), which increased operational pressure, especially for higher-cost producers.
Therefore, the operational interpretation for traders and institutions was more pragmatic than alarmist. The massive outflows indicated balance sheet activity and financial restructuring rather than indiscriminate liquidation. This reduced the immediate downside risk stemming from those one-off transfers, although it left a conditional supply latent: if prices deteriorate and loan clauses or financing needs are triggered, some of that BTC could eventually be sold.
