The recent funding situation of Ethereum is not showing a one-way withdrawal, but rather a clearer redistribution. Recently, a set of single-source data indicated that the Ethereum spot ETF experienced a net outflow of about 75.94 million USD in a single day, and the specific date remains unconfirmed, which has clearly put short-term sentiment under pressure; however, on the flip side, Grayscale's Ethereum staking mini ETF recorded an inflow of approximately 337 million USD in the first quarter of 2026, indicating that some funds have not exited the market but are being reallocated between passive positions in spot exposure and yield-bearing ETH products.

This rearrangement is also evident on-chain. Aave, which was previously impacted by the rsETH incident, saw its deposit scale drop by about 37%, leading to simultaneous pressure on DeFi's liquidity and risk appetite; however, the speed of fund outflows has significantly slowed recently, with DeFi United coordinating to secure approximately 30,000 ETH in loans and about 13,500 ETH in donations to alleviate related liquidity pressure. In other words, the current main line of focus is not on a "complete withdrawal of funds," but rather on the repricing of funds between different risk-return structures and holding paths.

75.94 Million USD Outflow Hits Three ETFs

This repricing is first reflected in the spot ETF shares that are easier to quickly adjust during traditional trading hours. According to single-source disclosure, the Ethereum spot ETF experienced about 75.94 million USD in net outflows in a single day, indicating that the initial reaction of short-term funds was not to continue to increase positions, but rather to withdraw first from the most standardized holding path with the most direct liquidity. For the market, this trend resembles a phase of cooling risk appetite during trading hours, rather than a sudden disappearance of on-chain demand.

More critically, this outflow is not concentrated in a single product, but instead occurs simultaneously across three mainstream products: Fidelity’s FETH saw an outflow of about 51.3 million USD, BlackRock’s ETHA had about 20.95 million USD outflow, and Grayscale’s ETHE experienced about 10.9 million USD outflow. This means that the withdrawal of funds is horizontal, covering Ethereum spot ETFs under different issuers, reflecting that this round of pressure is closer to a unified reduction in the sector rather than an isolated event of a single product.

However, the boundaries of this data must also be clarified: it represents a set of recent single-day flow data, and the specific date is unconfirmed, so it cannot be directly extrapolated to weekly or monthly trends, nor can it be hastily concluded that the funding situation of spot ETFs has entered a phase of continuous loss. A more accurate expression at the current stage is that short-term funds have first withdrawn from the spot ETF side, with sentiment during traditional trading hours clearly weakening, yet this precisely hints at a subsequent reallocation of funds towards other ETH exposures.

Grayscale Attracts 337 Million USD Despite Headwinds

If we extend the perspective from "a recent singular outflow" to a quarterly dimension, the funds are not limited to only the direction of withdrawal. In stark contrast to the approximately 75.94 million USD net outflow from the spot ETF, Grayscale indicated that its Ethereum staking mini ETF recorded an inflow of about 337 million USD in the first quarter of 2026. The statistical periods for these two sets of data are entirely different; the former is an unconfirmed date snapshot of a single day, while the latter is a quarterly accumulation, hence it cannot be directly subtracted or compared to derive strength, but placing them on the same fund migration map is sufficient to indicate that redistribution is occurring.

More critically, this kind of redistribution does not necessarily mean funds are completely giving up on ETH exposure. On the contrary, it resembles a switch from "pure price exposure" to "price exposure plus staking yield" holding method for part of the positions. In other words, the funds that sold or reduced their allocation in spot ETFs may not all flow into off-market observance; they might be looking for products with a more complete yield structure and friendlier perceptions of holding costs.

Grayscale's CEO also stated that this product ranked first among U.S. ETP providers during the same period. This statement also needs boundary stipulations: it comes from Grayscale's single perspective and is better understood as a comparative trend rather than a unified market conclusion. At least at this current stage, the data has provided a relatively clear signal—short-term pressure on spot ETFs coexists with the mid-cycle fundraising of staking products; funds related to ETH are not simply “flowing out of the market” but are being repriced between different vehicles.

Over 200 Million On-Chain Transactions Still Fail to Support ETFs

According to Grayscale’s single perspective, Ethereum's on-chain transaction volume has exceeded 200 million during the same period, with on-chain USD scale reaching 180 billion USD; however, it must be emphasized that the "same period" does not clearly specify which quarter, and external disclosures are not fully explicit. Even so, this set of data is sufficient to convey one thing: the intensity of use at the network level is not weak, and on-chain activity has not collapsed.

Grayscale clearly hopes to use these two metrics to prove that the underlying demand for Ethereum still exists—on one hand, high-frequency trading and interactions are still happening, while on the other, considerable on-chain USD scale continues to circulate. In other words, the fundamental narrative has not failed; at least from its disclosed perspective, network activity and capital carrying capacity are still supporting the judgment of "demand remains."

But here lies the issue: on-chain activity does not equate to an immediate corresponding buying pressure for spot ETFs. Recently, the spot ETF still experienced about 75.94 million USD in single-day net outflows, indicating that there is a significant time lag between strong fundamentals and actions in capital allocation—it may not even be a direct transmission chain at all. Short-term applications and redemptions are more easily influenced by product preferences, liquidity positioning, and capital choices for different ETH exposure tools, rather than simply being determined by "more active on-chain.” For the current market, what might decide the direction of capital is not whether there is demand on the network, but which type of vehicle aligns better with the current holding efficiency.

Aave's Deposits Shrink Post-rsETH Incident

If the ETF side reflects capital repricing between different products, then the most direct impact on the DeFi side comes from the transmission of the rsETH incident on Aave. Known information indicates that Aave's deposit volume once declined by about 37%. This decline alone is sufficient to indicate the problem: it is not just the price of a single asset or the size of a single position that is affected, but the liquidity support capacity at the protocol level and user confidence.

It is important to note that existing facts are not sufficient to classify this incident as a "hacking attack" or “exploitation of vulnerabilities.” A more accurate statement is that the rsETH incident triggered a noticeable contraction on Aave's deposit side and amplified market sensitivity to the liquidity safety margin of DeFi. The briefing did not provide the precise time window corresponding to this drop and did not disclose the absolute deposit scale, but a decline of about 37% is already enough to classify it as a critical on-chain variable in this round of Ethereum capital redistribution.

However, from the current marginal changes, the critical issue Aave faces is no longer whether it will continue to accelerate losses, but rather that the outflow rate is beginning to slow down. According to disclosed information, the speed of fund outflows recently has significantly slowed, indicating that the most intense phase of liquidity extraction may have already passed. While there are currently no finer quantitative data to characterize the degree of stabilization, the change in direction is significant: it means that while pressure on Aave remains, it is no longer deteriorating along the worst path.

This easing did not occur spontaneously. DeFi United has coordinated to secure approximately 30,000 ETH in loans and about 13,500 ETH in donations to alleviate related liquidity pressures. For Aave, this kind of internal liquidity support within the ecosystem may not immediately repair the deposit scale, but it has, at least in the short term, slowed the inertia of panic outflows. Viewed in the context of the entire text, this forms a clear contrast: on one side is the pressure on spot ETFs, on the other side is yield-bearing ETH exposures attracting funds, while on the other is the core DeFi protocol entering a phase of marginal repair following the event impact.

43,500 ETH Support Reduces Selling Pressure

What truly reduced the marginal selling pressure on Aave is not just emotional recovery, but quantifiable liquidity replenishment. DeFi United has coordinated to secure about 30,000 ETH in loans and about 13,500 ETH in donations, totaling about 43,500 ETH in support, which directly constitutes a buffer for easing protocol pressures. Although the timeline and specific executing parties of this coordinated action have not been fully disclosed, the result indicates that in sync with related actions, the speed of Aave’s recent fund outflows has significantly slowed.

This emergency funding does not mean that the risks have been completely alleviated. The earlier rsETH event caused Aave's deposit scale to drop by about 37%, indicating that the root of the problem cannot be entirely digested by a one-time blood transfusion. However, the 43,500 ETH in loans and donations at least indicate that when the core protocol is under pressure, the Ethereum ecosystem can still organize substantial liquidity support, and this self-rescue capability is part of market pricing.

Thus, to simply understand the recent changes as "funds withdrawing from Ethereum" is not accurate. A more truthful description is that the spot ETFs are under short-term pressure, yield-bearing staking products have attracted some capital, while the DeFi side has gained liquidity support through community coordination, entering a phase of marginal repair. Funds have not disappeared unidirectionally but have been repriced and redistributed between ETFs, staking products, and DeFi.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。