Ethereum whales and sharks have been actively increasing their holdings of Ether, with a reported boost of 3.72% over the past month. This increase comes as retail investors have begun to cash out and take profits. According to crypto analytics firm Santiment, wallets holding between 1,000 and 100,000 ETH added a net total of 1.49 million ETH, valued at approximately $3.79 billion.

As of June 12 data, these significant holders now control about 41.61 million ETH, which represents nearly 27% of the total supply of Ether. Despite this accumulation by larger investors, the price of Ether has only seen modest gains—up by 1.8% over the last two weeks and by 3.8% over the past month—trading at around $2,575 and remaining nearly 48% below its all-time high.

In addition to accumulating Ether, whales are also engaging with Ethereum's decentralized finance (DeFi) sector. Notably, whale transaction activity surged for Ethereum Name Service by approximately 313.5%, while lending protocols saw an increase of about 203.8%. Other layer-2 networks like Arbitrum and Optimism also experienced significant growth in USDC transfers.

On another front, institutional interest in Ether has been reflected in the spot ETF market; however, a streak of inflows into US-based Ether products came to an end after a record-setting period lasting for nearly three weeks with net inflows totaling $1.37 billion before experiencing outflows on one particular day.

Meanwhile, shares in SharpLink Gaming faced a steep decline after announcing plans to register shares for potential resale related to its Ether treasury strategy—a move that raised concerns among investors regarding its implications for their investments.

Overall market dynamics indicate that while large holders are accumulating assets amidst retail sell-offs and some institutional confidence is evident through ETF activities, the overall price movement remains relatively stagnant compared to historical highs.

Original article

The provided text is a financial analysis of the Ethereum market, and upon close examination, it reveals a plethora of biases and manipulative language. One of the primary biases present is economic and class-based bias, as the text consistently frames the actions of "whales" and "sharks" – large investors – as positive and beneficial to the market. The use of terms like "active increase" and "boost" creates a sense of excitement and approval, implying that these investors are driving growth in the market. This framing favors wealth accumulation by large investors over other stakeholders, such as retail investors or smaller traders.

Furthermore, the text employs linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases like "reported boost," "modest gains," and "stagnant compared to historical highs" create a narrative that emphasizes the positive aspects of market performance while downplaying potential drawbacks. This selective framing obscures agency and creates a sense of inevitability around market trends, which can be misleading for readers who may not have access to comprehensive information.

The text also exhibits structural and institutional bias by implicitly defending systems of authority within the cryptocurrency market. The emphasis on large investors accumulating assets amidst retail sell-offs reinforces existing power dynamics within the market, where those with more capital have greater influence over price movements. This framing does not interrogate or challenge these power structures but rather presents them as natural or desirable.

Selection and omission bias are also evident in this text. By focusing on whales' accumulation activities while largely ignoring retail investors' concerns about cashing out, the author creates an unbalanced narrative that prioritizes one group's interests over another's. Similarly, when discussing institutional interest in Ether through spot ETFs, there is no mention of potential drawbacks or criticisms surrounding these products; instead, it is framed as evidence of confidence in Ether.

Another instance of bias is cultural and ideological bias rooted in Western worldviews. The term "whales" itself has been adopted from traditional Western folklore but has since been co-opted by cryptocurrency enthusiasts to describe large-scale investors. This usage reinforces Western cultural narratives about dominance and power while neglecting alternative perspectives from non-Western contexts.

Confirmation bias is apparent when examining sources cited within this article; Santiment appears to be presented without question or criticism regarding its credibility or ideological slant on cryptocurrency markets. Furthermore, there is no mention or analysis of counterarguments against whales accumulating assets during retail sell-offs; instead, their actions are presented as neutral facts devoid context.

Framing narrative bias can be observed through story structure employed here: after establishing whales' accumulation activities as significant events driving growth (positive frame), followed by discussion on modest price increases (neutral tone), then concluding with stagnant price movement relative to historical highs (negative frame). This ordering nudges readers toward interpreting current trends favorably due to whales' actions rather than considering broader implications for smaller traders.

Lastly temporal bias becomes apparent when evaluating historical context surrounding Ethereum's all-time high; mentioning nearly 48% below all-time high implies recent history holds little relevance compared to past achievements – reinforcing presentism where recent developments overshadow long-term perspective