Did Garrett Jin Sell 577,896 ETH? What the Binance Deposits Show

That total appears to be the end of a larger sequence of reported deposits. Earlier coverage identified a 166,023 ETH transfer, valued around $394 million, from an address believed to be linked to Jin, followed by a separate 78,077 ETH deposit worth about $177.92 million ^[17][18][25]. Lookonchain profile snippets also described an interim 108,169 ETH deposit before the final 225,627 ETH transfer ^[31][33].

The important detail is the language: these reports describe ETH being “deposited,” “moved,” “transferred,” or “sent” to Binance ^{[19][20][21][31]}. Those words support the claim that ETH reached a centralized exchange. They do not, by themselves, prove the ETH was sold.

Deposit to Binance is not the same as proof of sale

An exchange deposit means ETH moved into a Binance-linked deposit flow. The provided sources do not include Binance order-history data, executed trades, or a complete post-deposit conversion showing that the full 577,896 ETH was sold after reaching the exchange ^{[19][20][21][31]}.

So the evidence-backed wording is:

• Supported: Garrett Jin-linked wallets deposited 577,896 ETH to Binance over four days ^[20][21][31].
• Not confirmed by the provided sources: Garrett Jin sold all 577,896 ETH after depositing it.

That distinction matters because crypto headlines often compress “moved to an exchange” into “dumped” or “sold,” even when the underlying on-chain event is only a transfer.

Why traders are treating it as potential sell pressure

The market reaction is still understandable. Large deposits to a centralized exchange can make coins available for sale or other liquidity use, so traders often treat them as a bearish risk signal.

Some coverage of Jin-linked ETH movements explicitly framed the deposits this way. CryptoRank said a 166,023 ETH deposit to Binance raised sell/liquidation risk and created a potential market overhang ^[17]. Other coverage said traders were watching exchange inflows after a 78,077 ETH Binance deposit, with at least one trader source calling the move bearish ^[1][2].

That is a risk interpretation, not proof of execution. A large CEX inflow can signal possible selling, but it is not the same as evidence that a sale has already happened.

Why some headlines sound more definitive

The confusion is partly caused by stronger wording around related activity. One February Binance Square snippet said a $53.12 million USDT withdrawal was believed to come from the sale of part of 5,000 BTC that had previously been moved to Binance ^[5]. Other February reports said Jin moved or deposited 261,024 ETH to Binance and framed the action as sell-side preparation or “started selling,” even though the cited on-chain event was still the ETH deposit to Binance ^{[8][37][39][40]}.

That prior context may explain why traders are suspicious of the later 577,896 ETH inflow. It still does not confirm that the full May ETH deposit was executed as a sale ^{[19][20][21][31]}.

What would change the conclusion

To move from “potential sell pressure” to “confirmed sale,” the evidence would need to show something beyond the deposit itself — for example, reliable execution data, a verified post-deposit conversion, or a clear report tying withdrawals or balances to the sale of that specific ETH amount.

None of that appears in the provided source set for the full 577,896 ETH. The strongest evidence-based verdict remains: confirmed large Binance inflow; unconfirmed ETH sale ^{[19][20][21][31]}.