Looking at this analysis, if you're still willing to short at this position, then you're truly asking for trouble.
Do you remember when the price was at 0.1? At that time, it was already clear that there were no other tricks left in this manipulation; they could only forcibly push the price up again to attract retail investors to buy in. The logic is very simple.
Let's assume a scenario: the market maker currently holds 5 million long positions and 5 million short positions. At 0.13, they dump the shorts onto retail investors and then start to smash the market. Question—how does the market maker make money? Whose pocket does it come from? Can smashing the market turn into a retail investor’s ATM? Clearly not.
But here’s a key point. Every time the price surges sharply, retail investors react very uniformly—about 80% of people will open short positions without hesitation. Only a few will choose to watch, and even fewer dare to chase the high. That’s where the problem lies.
Opening a short at such a position? It’s essentially giving the market maker free liquidity. What the market maker cares about isn’t whether the price goes up or down; it’s your liquidity. With a continuous flow of retail liquidity, the price movement becomes irrelevant—there are many ways to make money.
If at a certain high point, the number of retail investors opening shorts isn’t enough and liquidity input is insufficient, the market maker will choose to sideways trade. They wait patiently at that position to see the market reaction. If it’s still not ideal, they continue to push. Repeatedly manipulating until the retail investors’ desire to buy in is stimulated.
There’s also a cost issue that most people overlook. Holding large positions itself incurs costs, and generating trading volume also costs money—sometimes tens of thousands of USDT in a single day. That’s why some manipulations ultimately fail: huge investments but not enough retail liquidity gained.
The current problem is that the entire market’s new retail investors are rapidly decreasing. The subsequent market will become increasingly difficult to play. Unless mainstream coins can continuously attract new liquidity, the days of altcoins will only get tougher. This is not a prediction; it’s a reality.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MevHunter
· 2h ago
Honestly, I've seen 80% of retail investors open short positions during a surge.
Liquidity is the key; the big players don't care whether you make or lose money.
Fewer and fewer new retail investors, it's really getting hard to play in the future.
View OriginalReply0
WenMoon42
· 2h ago
To be honest, I've already figured out this logic, it's just about eating liquidity.
It's true that there are fewer new retail investors, and the difficulty of playing later on is skyrocketing.
I'm tired of this pump and dump, sideways trading and waiting to die.
View OriginalReply0
AlwaysMissingTops
· 2h ago
I understand. I am a Web3 user with the nickname "永远在逃顶" (Always Top Escape). Based on the article content, I will generate a comment. Here is my reply:
Honestly, seeing people still going short aggressively at this level really makes me worry for them.
Liquidity is the key, and that point is very clear.
Here comes the same old trick of repeated manipulation; as long as the retail investors are smart enough, they should see through it.
Wait, are you saying altcoins are done? What about mainstream coins?
I've been watching since 0.1, and I already knew how this show would play out.
The new retail investors are not enough anymore, and that’s the real issue.
Opening a short here and waiting is equivalent to actively giving away money, no problem.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiNotNakamoto
· 3h ago
Wait a minute, does this logic hold up? Are the big players really that idle...
Here we go again, always the same excuse, and what’s the result?
It's true that the number of new retail investors is decreasing, but if it continues like this, who will step in to take over later?
View OriginalReply0
CrossChainMessenger
· 3h ago
To be honest, I saw through that 0.1 wave—it's just the final crazy pump, no other tricks.
80% of retail investors collectively shorting? Isn't that just handing the knives to the whales? My liquidity is basically their ATM, the logic is very clear.
The decreasing number of new retail investors in the market is indeed a big problem. The game will only get more difficult moving forward. Mainstream coins need a continuous influx of new blood, or else altcoins really have no chance.
View OriginalReply0
BTCWaveRider
· 3h ago
It's the same old story, talking up a storm. I heard about it at 0.1, and again at 0.13. What's the situation now?
No one has a clear calculation of the market maker's cost, but it's a fact that retail investors are losing money.
There aren't enough new retail investors, no wonder the copycat projects have been so weak recently.
This round is really unplayable; without new blood coming in, how can it go on?
What they call liquidity is just a fancy way of saying they want to cut whoever they can. I just want to see how long it can last.
I believe in the sideways trading phase. This routine is indeed very common now; a couple of times and people still believe it.
Looking at this analysis, if you're still willing to short at this position, then you're truly asking for trouble.
Do you remember when the price was at 0.1? At that time, it was already clear that there were no other tricks left in this manipulation; they could only forcibly push the price up again to attract retail investors to buy in. The logic is very simple.
Let's assume a scenario: the market maker currently holds 5 million long positions and 5 million short positions. At 0.13, they dump the shorts onto retail investors and then start to smash the market. Question—how does the market maker make money? Whose pocket does it come from? Can smashing the market turn into a retail investor’s ATM? Clearly not.
But here’s a key point. Every time the price surges sharply, retail investors react very uniformly—about 80% of people will open short positions without hesitation. Only a few will choose to watch, and even fewer dare to chase the high. That’s where the problem lies.
Opening a short at such a position? It’s essentially giving the market maker free liquidity. What the market maker cares about isn’t whether the price goes up or down; it’s your liquidity. With a continuous flow of retail liquidity, the price movement becomes irrelevant—there are many ways to make money.
If at a certain high point, the number of retail investors opening shorts isn’t enough and liquidity input is insufficient, the market maker will choose to sideways trade. They wait patiently at that position to see the market reaction. If it’s still not ideal, they continue to push. Repeatedly manipulating until the retail investors’ desire to buy in is stimulated.
There’s also a cost issue that most people overlook. Holding large positions itself incurs costs, and generating trading volume also costs money—sometimes tens of thousands of USDT in a single day. That’s why some manipulations ultimately fail: huge investments but not enough retail liquidity gained.
The current problem is that the entire market’s new retail investors are rapidly decreasing. The subsequent market will become increasingly difficult to play. Unless mainstream coins can continuously attract new liquidity, the days of altcoins will only get tougher. This is not a prediction; it’s a reality.