The gray rhinoceros is already at the door: Why I advise you to seriously consider whether to leave the "pie circle"

In the past, the pancake circle was highly volatile, with BTC following a four-year cycle, but overall it experienced spiral growth. Some altcoins yielded excess returns, and during a bull market, some could achieve ten-thousand-fold gains, allowing the underdog to reverse their fortunes and change their destiny.

Although regulators prohibit participation, and there are risks of theft and scams, and friends and family may not understand, it indeed provides a quick way to realize wealth distribution.

I do not deny that history—indeed, the pancake circle once was a machine that “amplified risk, amplified luck, and increased the possibility of social mobility.” The problem is: the machine’s fuel has changed, the track has changed, and the rules have changed. Using the old “cycle faith” to explain the current situation is likely to result in paying tuition in new risks.

1. The previous surge relied on “few people, small scale, and regulatory gaps”

I believe the core was fewer participants, smaller scale, making large rises easier. The various black and gray industries that have been caught over the years also exposed that the main buyers back then were these people, and facing long-arm jurisdiction, they have also started to feel uneasy.

Many people are reluctant to admit: the “skyrocketing” market back then was fundamentally related to the participant structure, sources of funds, and regulatory vacuum.

Look, the world back then was rough:

Exchange rules were crude, arbitrage was rough, and information gaps were huge.

Channels for capital inflow and outflow were crude, and regulation was not as “systematic.”

Ordinary people were few; only a few dared to rush in. Naturally, volatility was high, and when prices rose, it felt like there was no brake.

Therefore, stories of “underdogs reversing” were plentiful—not because it was fairer, but because it was wilder, more unstable, more likely to produce miracles, and more prone to accidents.

2. The current problem is not “black swans,” but “gray rhinos”

I have a group of friends close to some insiders who believe these people also need to use USDT, and most likely, they are fine.

I understand this statement, and it is very true: “People above are using it, so it must be safe.” But logically, this only holds in the stage of “few participants, small impact, negligible.”

But when many ordinary people also get involved, rules are bypassed, and the financial system is impacted, what comes is not a black swan but a gray rhino.

What is a gray rhino? It’s not an unexpected extreme event but a systemic risk that everyone can see but has been ignored. It may not hit you tomorrow, but it’s accelerating until one day it overturns the table.

3. My three biggest concerns: platforms, USDT, and “policy buttons”

I believe some Bitcoin platforms currently face the risk of running away or bankruptcy.

This is not alarmism; it’s determined by industry structure: putting money into a place with “opaque information + uncertain regulation + high leverage + illusion of high liquidity” inherently means accepting the worst-case scenario.

I like arbitrage, but avoiding storing money on exchanges is impossible—Mt. Gox had over 80% market share and still went bankrupt; even after eleven years, some people haven’t recovered all their losses. FTX donated to Biden; SBF was a star trader who could influence BTC prices, yet it also went bankrupt. Bit Era was called a conscientious exchange, but its boss Huang Tianwei chose to hide when facing debt.

These names are not history books; they are warning lights: “The seemingly most stable can also explode.”

Because the most stable often attract the most, and when they collapse, it’s spectacular.

Then there’s USDT. Ratings agencies like S&P giving Tether a low rating reveal issues. Once certain events occur, Chinese users may not be able to recover full RMB.

I don’t want to debate “whether there is over-issuance” or “how transparent the reserves are” in this article. I just want to remind you: the USDT in your hands is essentially a “counterparty credit certificate.” It’s not cash, not legal tender, not the “digital dollar” you imagine. When trust cracks, its fragility is instantly magnified.

The third concern is even more critical: I believe the Chinese government may start cracking down on USDT at any time, as USDT effectively bypasses foreign exchange controls and creates a peer-to-peer underground money transfer network.

You can say “it’s still usable now,” or “people around me are using it.” But you must also admit: it inherently opposes regulation.

And regulators’ best move is not to debate with you but to press the button—policy is not a lottery; it doesn’t need prior notice like “drawing the lottery today.”

When this risk is triggered, you will face not just price fluctuations but:

Tax issues

Disrupted deposit and withdrawal chains

Upgraded OTC risk control, freezing, tracing

Increased compliance pressure on platforms, making withdrawals harder

Even the RMB you “recover” may become uncertain, discounted, or delayed.

4. The pancake is no longer “stimulating,” but altcoins are increasingly like “zeroing factories”

Bitcoin has not experienced big rises or falls in recent years; the number of altcoins has multiplied, most heading to zero, and arbitrage has become more professional.

When profits become obviously hard to make, exiting is the best choice.

This has been my biggest feeling over the years: the pancake has shifted from a “wealth explosion narrative” to a “financial asset narrative,” and altcoins from “excess returns” to “zeroing pipelines.”

As a market matures, dividends decrease. As it becomes more crowded, the scythe becomes more professional.

Manual arbitrage is now rare; opportunities are fewer.

It’s not that you’ve become lazy or unmotivated, but because:

Price differences are smoothed out by algorithms.

Speed, capital volume, and risk control systems have become thresholds.

What you think is “arbitrage” might just be providing liquidity for others.

Most critically: as scale increases, tax authorities and regulators worldwide pay more attention, and external risks accumulate.

You’re not earning “pure profit”; you’re earning “risk premium.”

And risk premium is not something to be earned every year; when it’s no longer worthwhile, it’s time to withdraw.

5. Every feast ends with someone paying the bill

Whenever there’s a feast, someone has to pay.

Not to mention the past few years’ Jiangxiang technology and the current bleakness of Baijiu; earlier, saying housing prices would fall would get scolded, now everyone is affected by the real estate downturn. The most popular now is dollar-cost averaging into the Nasdaq, as if everyone has finally found a way to keep earning without thinking about the main components of the Nasdaq or any guaranteed strategy.

I really want to keep this part because it exposes a human nature: people are not looking for opportunities; they are looking for the “always correct answer.”

But the world has no guaranteed strategy, only: what risks you take for what returns.

You may not find a way to hedge against housing declines, but there are trading tools for Nasdaq and pancake coins—it’s just a test of your judgment about the top.

In short: you can trade, but trading is not faith; you can participate, but participation must have an exit mechanism.

6. Be extra cautious near money: observe “why the boss personally steps in”

When it’s close to money, think more carefully.

From subtle details, I find it hard to understand: if this business is really profitable, why does the boss still need to personally step in to bring volume? Many Chinese bosses just do their part and then leave quietly, hiding their achievements.

This is a simple but very effective judgment:

If it’s truly a stable money-printing machine, why do they need to “story-tell,” “bring volume,” and “pull in new users” every day?

Why not quietly make money, expand low-profile, and hide risks?

When you see a project, platform, or ecosystem where the core people start frequently appearing, marketing often, and stirring emotions, you should ask yourself:

Are they managing a business, or are they managing your emotions and your funds?

7. My conclusion: look at whether the return justifies the risk

Pay attention to risks, think more, and if earning over 50% annually is sustainable, it’s worth continuing. If you can physically go out and do so legally, over 30% is still worth it; otherwise, you should consider some options in the next 1-2 years.

This is also very important because it shifts “to stay or leave” from emotion back to mathematics:

Can you cover the combined probability of “platform collapse, frozen accounts, deposit/withdrawal failures, policy buttons, counterparty credit” with a 50% return?

Are you earning 30% in a compliant, redeemable, reportable, realizable environment?

If not, your so-called gains might just be “risk deferral.”

8. Three unpalatable tips for those still in the market

1. Stop using “cycle” as a shield. Cycles are not rules; they are just past occurrences.

2. Don’t treat USDT as cash. It’s counterparty credit; you need contingency plans for “credit collapse.”

3. Don’t treat exchanges as banks. You put assets in, but what you get out might be lessons. I write these not to prove how smart I am, but to acknowledge a fact: as a market shifts from “barbaric dividends” to “professional gaming,” ordinary people’s win rate declines; when external risks turn from “accidental events” into “systemic variables,” you shouldn’t stake your life’s bottom line here.

Of course, you can stay, but please don’t stay “mindlessly.”

A more realistic choice might be: in the next 1-2 years, execute a planned withdrawal, turning your gains into truly yours. **$XAI **$AI