Korean retail traders fuel Ethereum treasury boom amid ETH underperformance

Ethereum is struggling. Against Bitcoin, it has lost ground steadily—down roughly 5% over the past month alone, and it hasn't recovered to its previous peak of $4,946. The question circulating among crypto observers is no longer whether Ethereum will outperform, but what is actually keeping it afloat at all.

Bitcoin advocate Samson Mow offered a blunt answer on October 5: South Korean retail traders. According to Mow, approximately $6 billion in money from these traders—known locally as seohak gaemie—has flowed into what are being marketed as Ethereum treasury companies. These firms accumulate ETH as a balance-sheet asset, mimicking the strategy that made MicroStrategy famous for its Bitcoin holdings. The pitch, Mow suggested, is simple: buy into the next big corporate accumulation play. The problem, he argued, is that many of these investors have no real understanding of Ethereum's technical picture or its long-term prospects. They are chasing a narrative, not a fundamental thesis.

The scale of this treasury movement is substantial. According to data from the Strategic ETH Reserve, 67 entities—including firms like BitMine and SharpLink—collectively hold approximately 5.49 million ETH, worth roughly $25 billion and representing 4.5% of Ethereum's total supply. This concentration of holdings in the hands of companies explicitly designed to accumulate the asset is a relatively new phenomenon in crypto markets, and it has become a focal point for skeptics questioning whether the demand is genuine or merely a product of marketing.

Mow's critique found support from Andrew Kang, co-founder of Mechanism Capital, who has been equally dismissive of the financial logic underlying these treasury models. Kang pointed to projects like BitMine as examples of what he called "undisciplined" approaches to treasury management—lacking the rigor and structure that characterize successful Bitcoin-holding corporations. He was direct about the technical picture: Ethereum's long-term range, he suggested, could remain trapped between $1,000 and $4,800 without a fundamental shift in the asset's underlying utility or adoption. The technicals, he said, are bearish.

Both critics zeroed in on the same underlying problem: financial illiteracy. Kang argued that Ethereum's valuation is being sustained primarily by investors who do not fully understand what they are buying, comparing the dynamic to historical rallies in assets like XRP. Retail enthusiasm can prop up a large market cap for a time, he acknowledged, but it is not a durable foundation. "The valuation that can be derived from financial illiteracy is not infinite," Kang stated plainly.

The evidence supporting this concern is visible in the price action. Ethereum's weakness against Bitcoin has been persistent. The ETH/BTC ratio has fallen more than 5% over the past year, a metric that reflects not just Ethereum's absolute price movement but its relative strength compared to the dominant cryptocurrency. This gap suggests that whatever narrative is driving Ethereum's valuation—whether it is treasury accumulation, technological progress, or institutional adoption—it is not resonating as powerfully as the Bitcoin story.

What remains uncertain is whether Korean retail demand will become a permanent structural support for Ethereum's price, or whether it represents the final chapter of a narrative that has already begun to exhaust itself. The answer may depend on something as simple as the chart itself: whether the price can hold, and whether new money continues to flow in. If it does not, the $6 billion in retail capital that Mow identified could prove to be not a pillar, but a temporary prop—one that eventually gives way.