Written by Haotian To be honest, the black swan event of October 11th made me, an originally optimistic industry observer, feel a sense of despair. I originally understood the current "Three Kingdoms" situation in the crypto industry, thinking that it was a fight between the gods and retail investors would get some meat. However, after experiencing this bloodbath and unraveling the underlying logic, I found that this was not the case. To put it bluntly, we originally thought that the technical community was innovating, exchanges were generating traffic, and Wall Street was allocating funds. The three parties were each doing their own thing. As long as we retail investors seize the opportunity, follow the wave of technological innovation, take advantage of hot spots, and rush in when funds enter the market, we can always get a share of the profits. However, after experiencing the bloodbath on October 11, I suddenly realized that these three parties might not be competing in an orderly manner at all, but were instead harvesting all the liquidity in the market? The first force: exchanges monopolize traffic and are vampires that control traffic and liquidity pools. To be honest, I used to think that exchanges just wanted to expand their platforms, increase traffic, expand their ecosystems, and make a lot of money. However, the USDe's cross-margin liquidation incident exposed the powerlessness of retail investors under the rules of the exchange platform. The leverage level increased by the platform to improve the product and service experience and the unclear risk control capabilities are actually traps for retail investors. Various rebate programs, Alpha and MEME launch pads, various revolving loans, and highly leveraged contract trading methods are constantly emerging. While these seemingly offer retail investors numerous profit opportunities, if exchanges can no longer withstand the risk of on-chain DeFi cascading liquidations, retail investors will also be dragged down. Life is like that. What's particularly frightening is that the top 10 exchanges generated $21.6 trillion in trading volume in Q2, yet overall market liquidity is declining. Where did the money go? Besides transaction fees, there's also various liquidations. Who's draining the liquidity? The second force: Wall Street capital, entering the market under the guise of compliance I was particularly looking forward to Wall Street entering the market, thinking that institutional funds could bring greater stability to the market. After all, institutions are long-term players and can bring incremental injections into the market. We will then reap the industry dividends of the integration of Crypto and TradFi. However, before this recent plunge, there were reports of whales profiting from precise short selling. Several wallets, suspected to be Wall Street structures, initiated massive airdrop positions before the crash, generating hundreds of millions in profits. Similar reports abound, resembling insider information. However, in these moments of panic, it makes one wonder: how do institutions consistently gain the advantage of "front-loading" before black swan events? These TradFi institutions, under the guise of compliance and capital, are actually entering the market. What are they actually doing? Using stablecoin public chains to tie up the DeFi ecosystem, using ETF channels to control capital flows, and using various financial tools to gradually erode the market's voice? On the surface, they claim to be doing this for industry development, but what is the reality? There are too many conspiracy theories about the Trump family's wealth to elaborate on. The third force: technology natives + retail developers, cannon fodder caught in the middle. I think this is where most of the retail investors, developers, and so-called builders in the market are truly desperate. Since last year, it has been said that many altcoins have been brought down, but this time it directly broke through to zero, forcing people to see the facts clearly: the liquidity of many altcoins is almost exhausted. The problem is, infra technical debt is piling up, application rollouts are failing to meet expectations, and developers are toiling away on building, only to find the market isn't buying it. Therefore, I can't see how the altcoin market will rebound. I don't understand how these altcoin projects will seize liquidity from exchanges, or how they will compete with Wall Street institutions in their ability to manipulate prices. If the market doesn't buy into the narrative, if the market is left with only so-called meme gambling, then the altcoin market will be a complete liquidation and reshuffle. Developers will flee, and there will be a structured reshuffle of market participants. Will the market return to nothingness? Oh, it's too difficult! so..... If the crypto industry's "Three Kingdoms" situation continues, with exchanges monopolizing the market, Wall Street profiting, and retail investors and technical analysts being domineering, this will be a disaster for the cyclical nature of crypto trading. In the long run, the market will only leave a few short-term winners and all long-term losers.Written by Haotian To be honest, the black swan event of October 11th made me, an originally optimistic industry observer, feel a sense of despair. I originally understood the current "Three Kingdoms" situation in the crypto industry, thinking that it was a fight between the gods and retail investors would get some meat. However, after experiencing this bloodbath and unraveling the underlying logic, I found that this was not the case. To put it bluntly, we originally thought that the technical community was innovating, exchanges were generating traffic, and Wall Street was allocating funds. The three parties were each doing their own thing. As long as we retail investors seize the opportunity, follow the wave of technological innovation, take advantage of hot spots, and rush in when funds enter the market, we can always get a share of the profits. However, after experiencing the bloodbath on October 11, I suddenly realized that these three parties might not be competing in an orderly manner at all, but were instead harvesting all the liquidity in the market? The first force: exchanges monopolize traffic and are vampires that control traffic and liquidity pools. To be honest, I used to think that exchanges just wanted to expand their platforms, increase traffic, expand their ecosystems, and make a lot of money. However, the USDe's cross-margin liquidation incident exposed the powerlessness of retail investors under the rules of the exchange platform. The leverage level increased by the platform to improve the product and service experience and the unclear risk control capabilities are actually traps for retail investors. Various rebate programs, Alpha and MEME launch pads, various revolving loans, and highly leveraged contract trading methods are constantly emerging. While these seemingly offer retail investors numerous profit opportunities, if exchanges can no longer withstand the risk of on-chain DeFi cascading liquidations, retail investors will also be dragged down. Life is like that. What's particularly frightening is that the top 10 exchanges generated $21.6 trillion in trading volume in Q2, yet overall market liquidity is declining. Where did the money go? Besides transaction fees, there's also various liquidations. Who's draining the liquidity? The second force: Wall Street capital, entering the market under the guise of compliance I was particularly looking forward to Wall Street entering the market, thinking that institutional funds could bring greater stability to the market. After all, institutions are long-term players and can bring incremental injections into the market. We will then reap the industry dividends of the integration of Crypto and TradFi. However, before this recent plunge, there were reports of whales profiting from precise short selling. Several wallets, suspected to be Wall Street structures, initiated massive airdrop positions before the crash, generating hundreds of millions in profits. Similar reports abound, resembling insider information. However, in these moments of panic, it makes one wonder: how do institutions consistently gain the advantage of "front-loading" before black swan events? These TradFi institutions, under the guise of compliance and capital, are actually entering the market. What are they actually doing? Using stablecoin public chains to tie up the DeFi ecosystem, using ETF channels to control capital flows, and using various financial tools to gradually erode the market's voice? On the surface, they claim to be doing this for industry development, but what is the reality? There are too many conspiracy theories about the Trump family's wealth to elaborate on. The third force: technology natives + retail developers, cannon fodder caught in the middle. I think this is where most of the retail investors, developers, and so-called builders in the market are truly desperate. Since last year, it has been said that many altcoins have been brought down, but this time it directly broke through to zero, forcing people to see the facts clearly: the liquidity of many altcoins is almost exhausted. The problem is, infra technical debt is piling up, application rollouts are failing to meet expectations, and developers are toiling away on building, only to find the market isn't buying it. Therefore, I can't see how the altcoin market will rebound. I don't understand how these altcoin projects will seize liquidity from exchanges, or how they will compete with Wall Street institutions in their ability to manipulate prices. If the market doesn't buy into the narrative, if the market is left with only so-called meme gambling, then the altcoin market will be a complete liquidation and reshuffle. Developers will flee, and there will be a structured reshuffle of market participants. Will the market return to nothingness? Oh, it's too difficult! so..... If the crypto industry's "Three Kingdoms" situation continues, with exchanges monopolizing the market, Wall Street profiting, and retail investors and technical analysts being domineering, this will be a disaster for the cyclical nature of crypto trading. In the long run, the market will only leave a few short-term winners and all long-term losers.

Exchange monopoly, Wall Street harvesting, and the desperate situation of retail investors

2025/10/12 13:48

Written by Haotian

To be honest, the black swan event of October 11th made me, an originally optimistic industry observer, feel a sense of despair.

I originally understood the current "Three Kingdoms" situation in the crypto industry, thinking that it was a fight between the gods and retail investors would get some meat. However, after experiencing this bloodbath and unraveling the underlying logic, I found that this was not the case.

To put it bluntly, we originally thought that the technical community was innovating, exchanges were generating traffic, and Wall Street was allocating funds. The three parties were each doing their own thing. As long as we retail investors seize the opportunity, follow the wave of technological innovation, take advantage of hot spots, and rush in when funds enter the market, we can always get a share of the profits.

However, after experiencing the bloodbath on October 11, I suddenly realized that these three parties might not be competing in an orderly manner at all, but were instead harvesting all the liquidity in the market?

The first force: exchanges monopolize traffic and are vampires that control traffic and liquidity pools.

To be honest, I used to think that exchanges just wanted to expand their platforms, increase traffic, expand their ecosystems, and make a lot of money. However, the USDe's cross-margin liquidation incident exposed the powerlessness of retail investors under the rules of the exchange platform. The leverage level increased by the platform to improve the product and service experience and the unclear risk control capabilities are actually traps for retail investors.

Various rebate programs, Alpha and MEME launch pads, various revolving loans, and highly leveraged contract trading methods are constantly emerging. While these seemingly offer retail investors numerous profit opportunities, if exchanges can no longer withstand the risk of on-chain DeFi cascading liquidations, retail investors will also be dragged down. Life is like that.

What's particularly frightening is that the top 10 exchanges generated $21.6 trillion in trading volume in Q2, yet overall market liquidity is declining. Where did the money go? Besides transaction fees, there's also various liquidations. Who's draining the liquidity?

The second force: Wall Street capital, entering the market under the guise of compliance

I was particularly looking forward to Wall Street entering the market, thinking that institutional funds could bring greater stability to the market. After all, institutions are long-term players and can bring incremental injections into the market. We will then reap the industry dividends of the integration of Crypto and TradFi.

However, before this recent plunge, there were reports of whales profiting from precise short selling. Several wallets, suspected to be Wall Street structures, initiated massive airdrop positions before the crash, generating hundreds of millions in profits. Similar reports abound, resembling insider information. However, in these moments of panic, it makes one wonder: how do institutions consistently gain the advantage of "front-loading" before black swan events?

These TradFi institutions, under the guise of compliance and capital, are actually entering the market. What are they actually doing? Using stablecoin public chains to tie up the DeFi ecosystem, using ETF channels to control capital flows, and using various financial tools to gradually erode the market's voice? On the surface, they claim to be doing this for industry development, but what is the reality? There are too many conspiracy theories about the Trump family's wealth to elaborate on.

The third force: technology natives + retail developers, cannon fodder caught in the middle.

I think this is where most of the retail investors, developers, and so-called builders in the market are truly desperate. Since last year, it has been said that many altcoins have been brought down, but this time it directly broke through to zero, forcing people to see the facts clearly: the liquidity of many altcoins is almost exhausted.

The problem is, infra technical debt is piling up, application rollouts are failing to meet expectations, and developers are toiling away on building, only to find the market isn't buying it.

Therefore, I can't see how the altcoin market will rebound. I don't understand how these altcoin projects will seize liquidity from exchanges, or how they will compete with Wall Street institutions in their ability to manipulate prices. If the market doesn't buy into the narrative, if the market is left with only so-called meme gambling, then the altcoin market will be a complete liquidation and reshuffle. Developers will flee, and there will be a structured reshuffle of market participants. Will the market return to nothingness? Oh, it's too difficult!

so.....

If the crypto industry's "Three Kingdoms" situation continues, with exchanges monopolizing the market, Wall Street profiting, and retail investors and technical analysts being domineering, this will be a disaster for the cyclical nature of crypto trading.

In the long run, the market will only leave a few short-term winners and all long-term losers.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Short-Term Bitcoin Profits Dominate For The First Time Since 2023

Short-Term Bitcoin Profits Dominate For The First Time Since 2023

The post Short-Term Bitcoin Profits Dominate For The First Time Since 2023 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitcoin is making another attempt to break the downtrend that has kept the crypto king capped since late October. Price is hovering near $91,000 as investors watch a rare shift in market structure unfold.  For the first time in more than two and a half years, short-term holders have surpassed long-term holders in realized profits, creating both opportunities and risks for BTC. Sponsored Sponsored Bitcoin Sees Some Shift The MVRV Long/Short Difference highlights a notable change in Bitcoin’s profit distribution. A positive reading usually signals long-term holders hold more unrealized gains, while a negative value indicates short-term holders are ahead. In Bitcoin’s case, the difference has dipped into negative territory for the first time since March 2023. This marks 30 months since short-term holders last led in profits. Such dominance raises concerns because short-term holders tend to sell aggressively when volatility increases. Their profit-taking behavior could add pressure on BTC’s price if the broader market weakens, especially during attempts to break the downtrend. Want more token insights like this? Sign up for Editor Harsh Notariya’s Daily Crypto Newsletter here. Bitcoin MVRV Long/Short Difference. Source: Santiment Sponsored Sponsored Despite this shift, Bitcoin’s broader momentum shows encouraging signs. Exchange net position change data confirms rising outflows across major platforms, signaling a shift in investor accumulation. BTC leaving exchanges is often treated as a bullish indicator, reflecting confidence in long-term appreciation. This trend suggests that many traders view the $90,000 range as a reasonable bottom zone and are preparing for a potential recovery. Sustained outflows support price stability and strengthen the probability of BTC breaking above immediate resistance levels. Bitcoin Exchange Net Position Change. Source: Glassnode BTC Price Is Trying Its Best Bitcoin is trading at $91,330 at the time of writing, positioned just below the $91,521 resistance. Reclaiming this level and flipping it into support…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/08 05:57
OKX founder responds to Moore Threads co-founder 1,500 BTC debt

OKX founder responds to Moore Threads co-founder 1,500 BTC debt

The post OKX founder responds to Moore Threads co-founder 1,500 BTC debt appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The successful stock market debut of Moore Threads, a company that’s being touted as China’s answer to Nvidia, has been overshadowed by resurfaced allegations that link one of its co-founders to an unpaid cryptocurrency debt that has been lingering for roughly a decade. Shares in the GPU maker skyrocketed to as much as 470% on Thursday following its initial public offering (IPO) on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, valuing the company at around RMB 282 billion ($39.9 billion). However, as the success was being celebrated online, a social media post revived claims that Moore Threads’ co-founder Li Feng borrowed 1,500 Bitcoins from Mingxing “Star” Xu, founder and CEO of cryptocurrency exchange OKX, and never repaid the loan. Crypto past with OKX founder resurfaces In an X post, AB Kuai.Dong referenced Feng’s involvement in a 2017 initial coin offering that raised 5,000 ETH alongside controversial angel investor Xue Manzi. Feng allegedly dismissed the Bitcoin loan, stating, “It was just that Xu Mingxing’s investment in me had failed.” Xu responded to the post with a conciliatory message, writing, “People cannot always remain in the shadow of negative history. Face the future and contribute more positive energy.” He added, “Let the legal system handle the debt issue,” and offered blessings to every entrepreneur. Feng reportedly partnered with Xue Manzi and Li Xiaolai in 2017 to launch Malego Coin, which was later renamed Alpaca Coin MGD. The project reportedly raised approximately 5,000 ETH, but it was around this period that China banned ICOs, allowing regulators to crack down on what they viewed as speculative excess and potential fraud in the cryptocurrency sector. The Bitcoin loan dispute appears separate from the ICO controversy. According to sources familiar with the matter, the original loan agreement was dated December 17, 2014, with an expiry of December 16, 2016.…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/08 06:13