Projects like BTP initially seem interesting, but upon closer inspection, they are riddled with problems.
The core issue lies in the unequal tax structure—the taxes ultimately flow to the creators, and the cards or other assets they purchase ultimately belong to them, while the funds come entirely from investors. Essentially, it's the same old empty-handed white wolf logic, yet people continue to follow suit.
The previous wave of supporting auction WIF operations is a clear example. Creators earned plenty of buzz and profits through such marketing tactics, while ordinary participants were deeply trapped. Under this fragmented profit distribution model, retail investors bear all the risks, while the profits are structurally transferred to the operators.
After understanding this mechanism, it becomes clear why such projects keep reappearing—not because the projects themselves are particularly clever, but because participant psychology is easily manipulated.
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MEVSandwich
· 10h ago
It's the same old story; once you see through it, it's no longer interesting.
View OriginalReply0
SchroedingerMiner
· 11h ago
It's the same old trick again, mouse poison sold in a different bottle.
Is it so hard to make a quick profit with nothing but empty hands? Retail investors will always be the leeks.
I saw through that WIF move right away, the操盘方 (operator) is laughing to death.
The creator is earning passively, while we are being textbook harvested, a perfect example.
If you see through it this time, isn't that enough? If you fall for it again, you're just plain stupid.
Ultimately, it's greed. The mentality of waiting for the wind won't change.
Always successful? Human weaknesses never go out of style.
View OriginalReply0
ContractCollector
· 11h ago
Basically, it's an upgraded version of cutting leeks; it's the same old trick with a new coat of paint.
I've seen through this game a long time ago. The creators happily count their money, while retail investors lose everything.
That wave of WIF was really amazing. I thought there might be some novelty, but it turned out to be the same lousy script.
The manipulation of mentality really hit home; I have to admit it's indeed easy to be led by the rhythm.
The problem is, knowing this in theory, but still seeing people rush forward one after another—it's truly magical.
It's the weakness of human nature; no matter how clever the tricks are, they exploit this.
View OriginalReply0
MEVHunterWang
· 11h ago
Basically, it's a leek harvesting machine; as soon as it changes skin, people fall for it.
It's just another old-fashioned manipulator game, no need to bother.
I'm already tired of this kind of scam; it's just an endless cycle, right?
The core is just two words—fraud. No matter how fancy the packaging, it can't change the essence.
I just want to know how many people will still fall into the trap; it's outrageous.
This layer of skin should have been seen through long ago; it's too obvious.
Projects like BTP initially seem interesting, but upon closer inspection, they are riddled with problems.
The core issue lies in the unequal tax structure—the taxes ultimately flow to the creators, and the cards or other assets they purchase ultimately belong to them, while the funds come entirely from investors. Essentially, it's the same old empty-handed white wolf logic, yet people continue to follow suit.
The previous wave of supporting auction WIF operations is a clear example. Creators earned plenty of buzz and profits through such marketing tactics, while ordinary participants were deeply trapped. Under this fragmented profit distribution model, retail investors bear all the risks, while the profits are structurally transferred to the operators.
After understanding this mechanism, it becomes clear why such projects keep reappearing—not because the projects themselves are particularly clever, but because participant psychology is easily manipulated.