2025-12-14 05:20:24

$FOLKS this project is interesting. Carefully examining the on-chain data reveals some clues. If the market maker really wanted to push the price up and sell off, why would the position size remain unchanged? If you say they are building short positions, then a massive waterfall crash to build shorts doesn’t make sense, especially since the smart money’s short positions are mostly retail investors taking the bait. If they really wanted to dump, they would follow the typical pattern of those crashing tokens—dropping a huge waterfall, and once people run, it’s over. The current pace and holding situation clearly don’t fit that script.

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.

6 Likes

Reward
6
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVHunterZhang

· 19h ago

Well, I agree with this logic. Holding positions steady indeed indicates a problem. Details determine success or failure; some coins have very obvious death signs. The unusual parts are often opportunities; you need to see clearly. Position data is the real truth; everything else is just talk. The rhythm of this move is indeed strange, but strangeness isn't necessarily a bad thing. Once again paid the IQ tax; still, you have to trust on-chain data.

View OriginalReply0

FlippedSignal

· 12-14 05:49

This move is indeed a bit tricky, not the usual routine of selling off.

View OriginalReply0

bridge_anxiety

· 12-14 05:39

Position unchanged? Now that's interesting. This logic indeed holds water. Executing a typical dump to sell off early is already done, but this rhythm is indeed a bit unusual. It feels like something is brewing; on-chain data can't be fooled.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerGas