Recently, we witnessed another classic "flash crash" event in the crypto world. A project named Light claimed to be a product of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and after launching on December 10, it was pumped several times within just a few days. However, shortly after, the price fell directly from $4.8 to $0.8 in just one hour. This vertical dumping technique has become so familiar that it is a bit unsettling.
You might think this is just an isolated case, but in fact, this operational process has become quite mature — the key is not how much capital the market maker has, but how much spot supply flows into the market.
The operational idea of Light is actually very conventional: the project party holds the vast majority of the chips, only releasing a very small portion to the market. They do not choose to go on mainstream exchanges, but instead concentrate liquidity on small platforms or certain DEX platforms. This time, the main battlefield is on a certain DEX.
Just look at this key data to understand: the trading pair's transaction volume reached 45 million USD within 24 hours, which accounts for 42% of the total transaction volume of the entire project. Backtrack a bit, the total transaction volume for the entire network is also around 100 million USD in 24 hours. Ironically, the project party claims that this is a "fully circulated" project.
Based on a daily trading volume of $100 million, the actual amount of spot trading that is truly circulating and can be freely traded may only be in the million-dollar range. What does this mean? It means that as long as a selling pressure of a few million is dumped, it is enough to collapse the entire fragile liquidity structure. Coupled with the leverage effect of perpetual contracts and the automatic slippage deterioration under the AMM mechanism, the price curve will plummet sharply.
The subsequent actions of the project party usually involve locking spot assets with high yields (high APY) to create an illusion of "scarcity." However, once confidence collapses, all locks and commitments turn into empty talk. This structural flaw has been exploited to perfection, and it seems that there will be no change in the short term.
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.
Recently, we witnessed another classic "flash crash" event in the crypto world. A project named Light claimed to be a product of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and after launching on December 10, it was pumped several times within just a few days. However, shortly after, the price fell directly from $4.8 to $0.8 in just one hour. This vertical dumping technique has become so familiar that it is a bit unsettling.
You might think this is just an isolated case, but in fact, this operational process has become quite mature — the key is not how much capital the market maker has, but how much spot supply flows into the market.
The operational idea of Light is actually very conventional: the project party holds the vast majority of the chips, only releasing a very small portion to the market. They do not choose to go on mainstream exchanges, but instead concentrate liquidity on small platforms or certain DEX platforms. This time, the main battlefield is on a certain DEX.
Just look at this key data to understand: the trading pair's transaction volume reached 45 million USD within 24 hours, which accounts for 42% of the total transaction volume of the entire project. Backtrack a bit, the total transaction volume for the entire network is also around 100 million USD in 24 hours. Ironically, the project party claims that this is a "fully circulated" project.
Based on a daily trading volume of $100 million, the actual amount of spot trading that is truly circulating and can be freely traded may only be in the million-dollar range. What does this mean? It means that as long as a selling pressure of a few million is dumped, it is enough to collapse the entire fragile liquidity structure. Coupled with the leverage effect of perpetual contracts and the automatic slippage deterioration under the AMM mechanism, the price curve will plummet sharply.
The subsequent actions of the project party usually involve locking spot assets with high yields (high APY) to create an illusion of "scarcity." However, once confidence collapses, all locks and commitments turn into empty talk. This structural flaw has been exploited to perfection, and it seems that there will be no change in the short term.