After BTC broke above 80,000, the market has become especially sensitive to the movements of old wallets. Within a week, a few dormant addresses that have been asleep for over ten years transferred $40 million. Many people’s first reaction is that early “whales” might be cashing out. I understand the anxiety—when coins of that level move, historically it does tend to make people associate it with the market’s phase top. But this time I’d rather first examine wallet organization or custody migration, because if there really is large-scale selling, it usually can’t avoid going through exchanges. And currently, the amount of BTC held on exchanges hasn’t shown any obvious jump. On-chain transfers can’t be judged by amount alone; you also need to look at the direction. My view hasn’t changed: in the short term, this could be used as an excuse to wash out some floating positions, but it’s difficult to rewrite BTC’s medium-term uptrend structure. If the pullback doesn’t break key support, it’s more likely to be an opportunity for spot funds to get back in. I won’t flip to short just because a single wallet shows unusual activity, and I won’t blindly chase after a surge. What I care about most is the strength of follow-through. This market often tries to explain price moves using a single incident, but this BTC rally is driven by macro expectations and spot demand—not by a certain batch of old coins. What really makes me cautious is overheated leverage, not on-chain transfers. Going forward, I’ll focus only on exchange net inflows and trading volume, rather than guessing someone’s intention behind a particular old address. Emotions can create volatility, but trends have to be confirmed by real money.