Ethena’s $10 Billion Buyback Puzzle: Is the Market Buying, or Is It Just a Shell Game?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Ethena’s $10 Billion Buyback Puzzle: Is the Market Buying, or Is It Just a Shell Game?
This “buyback” of 25% of the circulating supply—is it genuine market accumulation or a carefully orchestrated inventory transfer?
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Nay
Translation & Compilation: TechFlow
TechFlow Intro: Ethena sold $5.25 billion worth of discounted ENA tokens to StablecoinX through two PIPE financings, claiming the proceeds would be used to repurchase ENA from public markets. However, on-chain data reveals that nearly 90% of the 1.44 billion ENA tokens “repurchased” and deposited into exchanges were transferred there by Ethena’s own wallets *before* any buy-side activity appeared. Was this “buyback”—representing 25% of ENA’s circulating supply—a genuine market accumulation, or merely a carefully orchestrated internal inventory shuffle?
Ethena’s funding vehicle, StablecoinX, accumulated ENA holdings from zero to 20.3% of total ENA supply in under one year. Per regulatory filings for the two PIPE financings, this structure can be summarized as follows:
Investors provided cash and ENA tokens in-kind
Cash was used to purchase locked ENA from Ethena at a discount
Ethena used these cash proceeds to buy ENA on public markets (nominal amount ~$570 million; net ~$525 million after fees)
The core question is not whether ENA was purchased via exchanges. Rather, it is whether these purchases represent genuine open-market accumulation—or whether a substantial portion of the reported execution was instead fulfilled using ENA inventory pre-deposited into exchanges by wallets affiliated with Ethena.
On-chain, I identified clusters highly aligned with both announced scale and timing. Execution footprints suggest supply may have been staged across exchanges *prior* to execution—not sourced directly from open-market activity.
This analysis relies on entity-level attribution (via @inflecta_io). To ensure full verifiability, cited fund flows are footnoted with corresponding wallet addresses and transaction hashes.
Disclaimer: This is a best-effort reconstruction using publicly available data. Attribution is probabilistic, and certain interpretations may be incomplete.
Background
PIPE #1
On July 21, 2025, TLGY announced the StablecoinX transaction and an initial PIPE financing of approximately $360 million. The PIPE consisted of roughly $260 million (net) in cash and ~$101 million in-kind ENA payments—including a $60 million contribution from the Ethena Foundation.
In simple terms, Ethena sold locked ENA at a disclosed price of $0.21056 per token (a 30% discount at the time), funded by the cash portion of the PIPE.
“A subsidiary of the Ethena Foundation intends to use the proceeds from the token sale… to purchase ENA on public trading venues beginning today through intermediary market makers, further aligning the Foundation’s incentives with those of StablecoinX shareholders.”
Source: sec.gov
PIPE #2
On September 5, 2025, the parties announced an additional $530 million PIPE financing, comprising ~$265 million (net) in cash and ~$248 million in ENA in-kind payments, with locked ENA priced at $0.29.
“As with the initial PIPE financing, a subsidiary of the Ethena Foundation intends to use all cash proceeds… to purchase ENA on public markets beginning today through intermediary market makers…”
Source: sec.gov
The company later stated that, including the additional PIPE financing, StablecoinX is expected to hold over 3 billion ENA upon transaction completion.
StablecoinX Holdings
Per Inflecta data, StablecoinX currently holds 20.3% of ENA supply (~3.04 billion ENA). Each major accumulation coincides with a corresponding reduction in treasury/internal team balances—consistent with the structure described in the filings.
The three phases include:
~1.23 billion ENA batch (1) on July 23—aligned with the initial discounted ENA sale disclosed in PIPE #1
~914.3 million ENA batch (2) on September 19—aligned with the additional discounted ENA sale in PIPE #2
~885 million ENA in-kind batch (3) between March 14–18—originating from Ethena and investors, consistent with the in-kind portion of the PIPE structure, including 284.95 million ENA (~$60 million) contributed by the Ethena Treasury
Overall, StablecoinX’s fund flows closely match the structure described in the filings.
ENA Buybacks
Now, the most intriguing part: public-market execution.
In the two PIPE financings, ~$525 million (net) in cash was allocated to purchase ENA, with filings stating that a subsidiary of the Ethena Foundation would use these proceeds to acquire ENA on public markets via market makers.
I identified two clusters closely matching the announced plan in both scale and timing. Before diving deeper into these fund flows, it is instructive to examine exchange-level supply dynamics:
Coinbase Prime’s ENA balance first appeared on July 16—five days before PIPE #1—and moved in large, discrete steps
~2% of total supply was rebalanced between Coinbase and Coinbase Prime in November/December
Bybit’s balance expanded aggressively, briefly surpassing Binance before collapsing
Observed Execution for PIPE #1
Duration: August 20 – September 26
Observed total volume: 370 million ENA / ~$266 million at time of withdrawal (vs. declared net ~$260 million)
Venues: Coinbase Prime, Binance
1. Coinbase Prime Component
Comprised of three Coinbase Prime custodial wallets, withdrawals:
21.8 million ENA on August 20 (4)—later sent to PIPE #2 wallet (12), linking the two clusters
187.5 million ENA on September 10 (5)
26.5 million ENA on September 11 (6)
Total ~$180 million.
A key observation: Coinbase Prime held no material ENA balance prior to mid-July.
So the question becomes: Where did this supply originate?
Between July 16 and September 11, wallets strongly associated with Ethena accounted for ~89.3% of all external inflows into Coinbase Prime—depositing ~383.9 million ENA (~$278 million) via a single deposit wallet (7).
The majority of this—~316.7 million ENA—came from one of Ethena’s primary treasury wallets (8):
70 million ENA (~$46.4 million) on September 5—the day PIPE #2 was announced
246.7 million ENA (~$194.5 million, across five transactions) on September 10—the day of the largest withdrawal
In other words, the bulk of ENA later withdrawn from Coinbase Prime appears to have originated from wallets controlled by Ethena.
2. Binance Component
Comprised solely of one wallet (9), which withdrew 133.3 million ENA (~$86 million) from Binance and ~$500,000 from Coinbase between September 15–26—almost entirely sent to wallets linked to Ethena and the StablecoinX financing (10).
The chart below shows wallet (11), which received ~8.4% of total supply from the main treasury wallet in 2024—indicating Ethena treasury control—and distributed 150 million ENA to Binance and Bybit between July 21 (the day PIPE #1 was announced) and July 26 via nine intermediary wallets.
Between July 21–26, wallets strongly associated with Ethena distributed 150 million ENA to exchanges via nine intermediaries. Roughly 1.5 months later, another Ethena-affiliated cluster withdrew ~134 million ENA from Binance.
Observed Execution for PIPE #2
Duration: November 7 – February 12
Total volume: 1.068 billion ENA / ~$272 million at time of withdrawal (vs. declared net $265 million)
Venues: Coinbase, Bybit
Execution converged into a single wallet (12)
1. Coinbase Component
Consisted of one transaction (13):
302.94 million ENA / $83 million on December 3.
Let’s examine the inflows feeding it:
Sequence of events:
October 14: Ethena Treasury injected ~363 million ENA into Coinbase Prime (14)
November 1: 63.6 million ENA returned to the same treasury wallet (15)
November 14: Coinbase Prime transferred ~281 million ENA to Coinbase (16)
November 17–20: CB Prime and Coinbase rebalanced inventory via intermediary wallets (17)
December 3: ~227 million ENA moved from CB Prime to Coinbase (18)—less than one minute before Coinbase sent 303 million ENA to the execution wallet (12)
Summary: The December 3 transfer occurred *after* the CB Prime → Coinbase injection—not after accumulation of supply within Coinbase itself. That Prime inventory was supplied by the Ethena Treasury. Post-transaction, Coinbase’s balance reverted almost exactly to its starting point (~140 million ENA).
2. Bybit Component
The same execution wallet shows two distinct accumulation phases:
November 7 – December 7: 440 million ENA (~$126.8 million), primarily in 25-million-ENA increments
January 7 – February 12: 325 million ENA (~$62.2 million), again in 25-million-ENA increments
CEX balances provide additional context.
Bybit’s ENA balance increased from ~240 million at end-April to ~1.05 billion on November 6—the day before execution began.
While this period overlaps with investor distributions, relative inter-exchange changes are notable:
Bybit:Binance supply ratio rose from ~1:3 at end-April
To a peak of ~1.1:1 on November 6
Then reverted back to ~1:3 after the program concluded
What stands out is the timing: inventory appears to have been concentrated on Bybit *before* execution—not built gradually during execution.
What drove this shift? Data points to cross-exchange market maker routing (heavily skewed toward Bybit), ongoing investor distribution (primarily to Binance), and some inflows from Coinbase Prime.
Possible explanations include:
Execution occurred earlier on another exchange (e.g., Binance), with supply later repositioned to Bybit for withdrawal
Demand for ENA on Bybit spiked precisely before execution, peaking just before withdrawals began—and then normalized
Existing inventory was routed to Bybit by the executing counterparty ahead of schedule
The question is whether this conforms to the simple explanation of “open-market accumulation during execution.” I remain open to alternative interpretations and am happy to share underlying data.
Final Thoughts
I have presented a reconstruction of on-chain activity during the execution windows. The final chart summarizes the fund flows discussed in this article:
Observed total: 1.44 billion ENA (~$538 million at time of withdrawal)
This corresponds to:
~9.6% of total supply
~25% of free float (calculated as total supply minus treasury, StablecoinX, and locked insider holdings)
Some of the execution wallets shown above are routinely associated with Ethena buyback activity. More importantly, they constitute significant observable clusters that match—in scale, timing, and footprint—the “cross-public-market” description outlined in the filings.
The implication is not that these trades did not occur on public venues—but rather that the interpretation of a “buyback” hinges on whether they represent net market absorption, or simply withdrawals of supply already positioned at those venues.
This is not a claim of perfect attribution. On-chain attribution is inherently probabilistic. If additional context or alternate interpretations—supported by on-chain data—are available, I welcome incorporating them.
At this scale, execution could not possibly be invisible.
Footnotes
(1) StablecoinX Batch #1 Transaction 0x3339455dd775da5e18778577bdbb9dd20f96858295cb05c9d3ed0f630f6fb868
(2) StablecoinX Batch #2 Transaction 0xb22d5e79122aa6a3c6ed1bb4dbe0057a4802c0dc37eaf6dab38736cddca31b44
(3) StablecoinX Batch #3 Wallet 0x7462f0D93260909870487f17A27c336349579557
(4) PIPE #1 CB Prime Cluster Wallet #1 0xd54ce6a55312cbd708166d225bbdba95458177ab
(5) PIPE #1 CB Prime Cluster Wallet #2 0xa55457e0d0652ba47fe1f97873a62b4f9dcae4d1
(6) PIPE #1 CB Prime Cluster Wallet #3 0x72b272ccca76e0394352ff7819fb846855a164ad
(7) Ethena’s CB Prime Deposit Wallet: 0xF2e2f6827AB893d636eb98F3Aac81E850880DA83
(8) Ethena Treasury Wallet 0xcfc40d4ECa21F60D329F1E6b9B3D6069EaA20BBC
(9) PIPE #1 Binance Execution Wallet: 0x9c7B3C57632aB8BED71a4dDbC950d8C009DFe7aA
(10) Ethena-Controlled Wallet 0x8e771f7bAb34a3b4491e03F22f005483E5c375f5
(11) Ethena-Controlled Wallet 0xB2af973905F05BC82bf97486b6aB883598D98298
(12) PIPE #2 Execution Wallet 0x631ee55b8ecd7afb53ec30211a082691a4cbe3ae
(13) PIPE #2 Coinbase Transaction 0x0563d67d3133d48ee5198fdd767adbcafa56e7f21e1b97bf8162322f4d75bab1
(14) PIPE #2 Treasury → CB Prime Outflow 0x5152627b344638435633a019236e89d5aa8b4dfeb2d3888d624c2094339aa520
(15) PIPE #2 CB Prime → Treasury Outflow 0xd42b531494d2c4c8ed8c93cf8cac13812fb7cb7b6e07805e06eecb1d9dc99d63
(16) CB Prime → Coinbase Outflow 0x0606edcf12e084271b6e2547d3ce2bc20300d84574bdc95740be9259d718fd35
(17) CB Prime <-> Coinbase Internal Routing Example 0xe6406faee21f3f236956195c586fab1592240adc698eabfb166644ae17f5e95d 0x9e73cf8043903e6fa2ccb7a8646c855f8c9d3f6a39995ba790fa1bcd1d181df9
+ Hundreds of small transactions via intermediary wallets & routers, e.g.: 0x39FC29dcffC02A01E8133F9cc5e0aCF464A9000C
(18) CB Prime → Coinbase Internal Routing 0x1dd792b91ab98a122c73c86aae73af0d6641df96ddcde187724bf5860cf1d893
(19) Dedicated Bybit ENA Wallet 0x70167B76543C4a12b49B2f2B70CBf04D99345786
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@gmnay_
