The Ethereum Foundation (EF) executed a significant internal transfer of 160,000 ETH, valued at approximately $654 million at the time of the transaction.
This movement was first flagged by on-chain analytics firm Lookonchain and quickly analyzed by Arkham Intelligence. The funds were shifted from an EF-controlled address to a Gnosis Safe multisig wallet also under EF management, indicating a routine treasury reorganization rather than a deposit to exchanges for sale.
A multisig wallet historically used for ETH sales to Kraken or SharpLink Gaming, but no outflows to exchanges occurred post-transfer. EF Co-Executive Director Hsiao-Wei Wang clarified on X that this was part of a “scheduled wallet migration” for security and custodial updates. All ETH remains in EF-controlled wallets.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
This marks the EF’s largest single transfer in 2025 and follows a July sale of 10,000 ETH ~$40M at the time to fund R&D. The EF holds ~$827M in total assets, mostly ETH, with smaller positions in BTC, BNB, and ARB.
ETH price rose ~2.8% to reclaim $4,000 amid broader recovery, despite initial speculation of a dump. This event coincides with heightened scrutiny of the EF, including a resurfaced 2024 letter from former Geth developer Péter Szilágyi criticizing internal favoritism and developer support.
Elon Musk’s aerospace company— SpaceX, moved 2,395 BTC valued at ~$268 million from two labeled wallets to new, unmarked addresses. Tracked by Nansen and Arkham Intelligence, this is the company’s second major BTC activity in three months, following a $153M transfer in July.
1MDyM sent ~1,298 BTC or $130M and “1AXeF” sent ~1,197 BTC or $127M. Destination Addresses: “bc1qj” and “bc1qq” (inactive post-receipt; no sales or further transfers). Small test transactions ~$150–$177 via Coinbase Prime, typical for custody verification.
Likely internal housekeeping, such as upgrading to enhanced cold storage or multisig setups—common for institutional holders. SpaceX has not commented, but analysts view it as non-selling maintenance. SpaceX retains 8,285 BTC total $894M–$1.1B, acquired mostly in 2021, with unrealized gains over $621M. It sold ~70% of its position in 2022 amid market turmoil.
Bitcoin dipped below $108,000 amid U.S.–China trade tensions and ETF outflows, but the transfer didn’t trigger additional selling pressure. SpaceX’s BTC strategy contrasts with Musk’s vocal support for the asset’s “inflation-proof” model, though his companies including Tesla have a history of selective holdings.
Both moves highlight institutional crypto management in volatile times: EF focusing on Ethereum ecosystem sustainability amid internal debates, and SpaceX maintaining long-term BTC exposure despite competitive pressures in space tech.
No evidence of sales emerged, easing fears of market dumps. These events underscore growing on-chain transparency, with tools like Arkham enabling real-time scrutiny. These transfers align with a pattern of large entities optimizing treasury security without disrupting markets.
Péter Szilágyi, a former Ethereum Foundation (EF) developer known for his work on the Geth client, publicly criticized the EF in a June 2024 letter that resurfaced during the recent $654M ETH transfer discussion on October 21, 2025.
His critiques, primarily shared via a blog post and echoed on X, focus on internal mismanagement and misalignment with Ethereum’s ethos. Szilágyi alleged that the EF prioritizes funding for projects led by insiders or those with personal connections, sidelining independent developers. He claimed this creates an “old boys’ club” dynamic, undermining meritocracy.
He pointed to inconsistent grant allocation, where well-connected teams received substantial funding while others, including critical infrastructure like Geth, were underfunded. Szilágyi argued that the EF underinvests in essential Ethereum infrastructure, such as the Geth client, which powers a significant portion of the network’s nodes.
He noted that Geth’s team operated on a lean budget, risking long-term network stability. He contrasted this with lavish spending on less critical or speculative projects, accusing the EF of prioritizing “shiny” initiatives over foundational needs.
He criticized the EF’s opaque decision-making, particularly around treasury management and grant distribution. Szilágyi called for clearer accountability on how the EF’s ~$827M in assets (mostly ETH) is allocated. This resonated with community concerns during the $654M ETH transfer, where some X users speculated about potential sales or mismanagement, though the EF clarified it as a routine wallet migration.
He argued that the EF’s focus on high-profile events and marketing (e.g., Devcon) overshadows the need for consistent developer funding and morale. He expressed concern that the EF was drifting from Ethereum’s decentralized, open-source ethos toward centralized control and corporate-like behavior, risking community trust.
The EF has not directly addressed Szilágyi’s letter in recent statements. However, Co-Executive Director Hsiao-Wei Wang clarified the $654M transfer as a security-driven wallet migration, aiming to quell speculation. The criticisms fueled debates about the EF’s role as Ethereum scales.
The EF’s treasury, holding ~$827M, remains a flashpoint, with community scrutiny intensified by on-chain transparency tools like Arkham. While Szilágyi’s letter didn’t directly impact the October 2025 transfer’s execution, it amplified skepticism about the EF’s long-term strategy.