Perhaps at the very beginning of 2026, we've all been set up by Wintertermute.

Author: zhou, ChainCatcher

At the beginning of 2026, the dramatic fluctuations in Bitcoin prices once again thrust cryptocurrency market maker Wintermute into the spotlight.

During the New Year's holiday, a period of extremely low liquidity in global markets, Wintermute frequently injected large sums of money into Binance, sparking strong doubts from the community about "institutional dumping."

On New Year's Eve, December 31, the price of Bitcoin hovered around $92,000. On-chain monitoring data showed that Wintertermute deposited a net 1,213 Bitcoins, worth approximately $107 million, into Binance that day.

The transfer occurred precisely when European and American traders were going to their late-night rest and the Asian trading session was ending—a period widely recognized as the most liquidity-scarce. This selling pressure likely caused Bitcoin's price to quickly fall below the $90,000 mark.

In the following two days, Wintertermute continued its high-frequency net deposit trend. On January 1st and January 2nd, the institution saw net inflows of approximately 624 and 817 Bitcoins into Binance, respectively.

In just three days, it deposited a total of 4,709 Bitcoins into Binance and withdrew 2,055, resulting in a net deposit of 2,654 Bitcoins. Meanwhile, the price of Bitcoin accelerated its decline on January 2nd, hitting a low of around $88,000.

These actions have once again raised questions about the role of market makers. Investors who support the "manipulation theory" believe that this is a targeted attack by institutions using their technological advantages on retail investors.

Is it malicious dumping or routine inventory management?

In fact, this is not the first time Wintermute has been caught in a media storm.

Looking at its past trajectory, Wintertermute's funds have repeatedly appeared on the eve of major market shocks.

For example, on October 10, 2025, the crypto market experienced an epic liquidation of up to $19 billion, and just hours before the crash, Wintertermute was detected transferring a massive $700 million worth of assets to exchanges.

Furthermore, from the SOL crash in September 2025 to the earlier governance proposal controversy at Yearn Finance in 2023, this leading market maker has been repeatedly accused of "pump and dump".

Regarding accusations of market manipulation, Wintermute and its supporters hold diametrically opposed positions. The core point of contention between the two sides lies in how to precisely define the line between "legitimate market making" and "malicious manipulation."

Critics argue that market makers deliberately chose the holiday window of liquidity depletion to inject spot goods, intending to artificially create selling pressure and precisely trigger the stop-loss chain of retail investors' long positions.

By leveraging their deep partnerships with major exchanges and their insights into the market's microstructure, market makers can easily create volatility through large orders during periods of low liquidity, thereby profiting from market manipulation.

However, Wintermute CEO Evgeny Gaevoy dismissed this as a "conspiracy theory." In an interview, he emphasized that the current market structure is vastly different from that of 2022 when Three Arrows Capital and Alameda went bankrupt. The current market system boasts greater transparency and more robust risk isolation mechanisms, with institutional fund allocations primarily aimed at adjusting inventory or hedging risks.

Gaevoy stated that when there is a severe imbalance between buy and sell orders on an exchange, market makers must maintain liquidity supply by transferring positions. This behavior may objectively amplify short-term volatility, but its subjective intention is definitely not to profit from the market.

In fact, the reason why the controversy has been so long in the making is that the crypto market lacks a universally accepted benchmark for judgment.

• In traditional securities markets, using financial advantages to place false orders or deliberately manipulate prices is a clear criminal offense.
• But in the 24/7, highly algorithmic world of crypto, how can we verify whether large institutional transfers are for market intervention or arbitrage?

This lack of a clear dimension for judgment leaves leading market makers like Wintertermute caught in the crossfire of public opinion—they are seen as the cornerstone of market liquidity, yet also as an undeniable "invisible hand."

Exchanges and some industry analysts tend to believe that market makers are a "necessary evil" in the market ecosystem. Without these leading players providing two-sided quotes, cryptocurrency volatility could spiral out of control, potentially triggering a systemic slippage disaster.

However, from the perspective of ordinary investors, institutions possess overwhelming advantages in terms of capital, algorithms, and information. In an environment lacking rigid rules and constraints, this advantage is bound to become a tool for seeking illicit gains.

The "Cyber Prisoner's Dilemma" Caused by Transparency

Beyond analyzing the micro-operations of Wintertermute, this year-end turmoil actually exposed a long-standing, almost paradoxical contradiction in the crypto world: the absolute transparency we pursue is increasingly becoming a weakness in institutional games and a source of market noise.

In the traditional financial sector, the position adjustments, inventory management, and internal fund transfers of institutions such as BlackRock or Goldman Sachs are generally difficult for outsiders to discern in the micro-details of their transactions unless they appear in quarterly reports or regulatory disclosures.

But in the world of blockchain, privacy barriers have disappeared.

The fundamental principles of blockchain are openness and immutability, which were designed to prevent fraud and promote decentralization. However, as we have seen, every inflow and outflow of BlackRock ETF-related addresses, and every transfer from Wintertermute to Binance Hot Wallet, is like a public performance in a transparent glass room.

The fact that institutional giants must accept is that every move they make will be analyzed by monitoring tools into highly directional "market crash warnings" or "position building signals".

Does this transparency truly bring fairness? The crypto world has always touted "equality before data," but in reality, this extreme transparency has instead fueled more misunderstandings and collective panic.

For retail investors, the matching engines and order placement logic used by institutions within CEXs are difficult to discern; they often can only infer results from on-chain traces. This information asymmetry means that any unusual activity on the chain can be interpreted as a conspiracy, further exacerbating irrational market volatility.

Conclusion

When everyone in the market is staring at BlackRock and Wintertermute's wallet addresses, what we're trading may no longer be the value of Bitcoin itself, but rather suspicion and emotions.

Information gap is dead, cognitive gap is eternal.

For investors, although market risk isolation is now more mature and the chain reaction of defaults is no longer so frequent, the sense of powerlessness of "seeing the data but not the truth" seems to have never disappeared. In the deep waters of the crypto world, where the game is extremely complex, only by establishing an independent cognitive system that penetrates surface fluctuations can one find a sense of certainty for oneself.