In the crypto world, you need a more resilient investment philosophy.

Author: Daii

First, let's take a look at a recent MYX show.

In early September 2025, its price skyrocketed on multiple exchanges. Within a week, it peaked at over ten dollars, and the media amplified the hype.

Immediately afterwards, the on-chain data team Bubblemaps posted a series of long posts on X (formerly Twitter): “The same entity used 100 newly funded wallets to withdraw about $170 million from the MYX airdrop,” and provided on-chain tracking details (continuing from September 9).

Subsequently, industry media and news platforms followed up and reposted, and the situation quickly escalated. Ordinary users also provided very direct feedback on different platforms:

• A user from Binance Square, “Arfath 29”, posted a reminder: “The top 5 addresses hold 72.63% of the total supply. Once they dump, retail investors will be left holding the bag.” (Posted in mid-September on Binance Square). This is not technical jargon, just plain language: a few large holders call the shots.
• A user on Binance Square, “Lenora Opatz yMnL”, stated bluntly: “Many people shorted this broken coin and lost all the profits they had previously made, as if liquidity was being drained from them every hour, and there was no way to escape.” (Published in mid-September on Binance Square). This reflects the “dilemma” retail investors feel amid real volatility.

Then, from the second day to the third day, the media began to systematically sort out the entire incident: some articles referred to this wave of market activity as a combination of “spot lifting - squeezing out contract shorts - selling at a high”; they even compared the timing of the unlocking of 39 million tokens with the price peak, reminding that this was the “best liquidity and easiest distribution” window. Dates, amplitudes, and liquidation amounts were all provided with figures.

Raising prices to offload, everyone can see clearly. In fact, the “gear” of this round of short squeeze is very obvious:

Low circulation + spot price increase → index moves up → contract forced liquidation → passive buying pushes higher.

The core principle is: small spot money leverages large leverage.

As long as the price pushes through several key levels, the liquidation engine will continue to buy for the bulls, forming a feedback loop of “price increase - forced liquidation - further price increase,” causing the shorts to exit in droves. This is the direct background of the “more than 40 million dollars in liquidations accumulated” that occurred on September 8-9.

However, MYX officially responded on September 10, denying fraud and manipulation, stating that the airdrop rewards are “based on real transactions and LP contributions,” and expressed that they will pay more attention to preventing witch attacks in the future (implying that these airdropped tokens were claimed by witches). On the same day, several English media outlets recorded this response and also cited a long post link from Bubblemaps on September 9. In other words, the accusations and defenses are laid out simultaneously, with everyone holding their own views. (Coinspeaker)

The most critical support that MYX does not acknowledge manipulation is: currently, MYX is around 15 dollars.

However, if you think that MYX has not been pushed to increase its sales based on this, then you are very mistaken. The reason is simple:

“Holding at a high position” does not equal “reasonable valuation”; it's more about the synergy of structure and rhythm.

MYX currently has a circulation of about 197 million, accounting for approximately 20% of the total supply; under the “low circulation / high FDV” framework, the “elasticity” of the unit price is quite large. As long as the new selling pressure is not strong (MYX airdrops are unlocked monthly) and market makers are willing to buy, the price can stay at a high level for a long time.

In a word, the script of this round of MYX show is not fresh:

• Small circulation supports prices, derivatives leverage amplifies fluctuations, and forced liquidation turns shorts into buy orders;
• The reason why prices remain high is largely due to the combined effects of structural supply tightness + increased entries + upgrading narratives.

No matter which side you stand on, at least think clearly about two things first:

• Those who master the order and flow can better dominate the rhythm;
• High-level sideways movement does not mean that the risk has disappeared.

So, if you participated in MYX trading and lost a lot of money, it's not surprising. This game is inherently biased towards those who control the narrative and the chips. For MYX, it's better to avoid it altogether. If you're like me, just sell the airdrop at the right moment.

If we abstract this kind of recurring story into a framework, its name would be:

Predatory Market Structure

It is not a single-point scam, but a whole set of intentionally assembled “system arrangements + trading mechanisms + incentive designs” that allows the side with more fluid information and centralized power to stably and repeatedly extract value from weaker participants.

In simple terms, a predatory market structure is like a jungle society, where the only rule that applies is - the weak are preyed upon by the strong.

• In traditional finance, this structure is hidden within order flow kickbacks and dark pool internalization, concealed in market manipulation and deceptive order placements;
• In the world of cryptocurrency, it has transformed into a more rapid and intense performance by leveraging the issuance method of “high FDV, low circulation,” creative distribution and priority rights (MEV), the amplification chain of KOLs, and the liquidation mechanism.

In other words, it is not a “bug” in the system, but a “feature” that is written into the products and systems. Understanding this, the question is no longer “who has scammed whom,” but rather why this structure can operate for a long time, what it relies on to maintain its moat, and what we can do.

Next, we will break it down one by one.

1. Why the “Plunder” in the Crypto Circle Continues to Persist Despite Bans

Just like the MYX mentioned above, on the surface, it may seem like a particular project, a certain piece of news, or a market crash, but in reality, there are several long-term foundations at work behind the scenes—who is more agile with information, who has the ability to turn information into profit, and where the gaps in the system lie.

By understanding these three foundations, one can grasp why the same set of tricks can always be performed in different ways, and know where to start to protect oneself.

1.1 The Three Pillars of Plunder

If you only focus on a few instances of dramatic rises and falls, it's easy to attribute everything to “human greed.” But if you zoom out, you'll see a more stable “topography”:

The first cornerstone is information asymmetry.

This is not a new term – as early as 1970, economist Akerlof used the “lemon market” to explain: when it is difficult for buyers to distinguish between good and bad, bad products will “crowd out” good ones from the market.

“Lemon” is not a literary rhetorical device, but a colloquial term in American slang for a problem car / defective product (the U.S. even has a specific “Lemon Law” to protect buyers). Early 20th-century media used lemon to refer to “substandard goods purchased,” later specifically referring to used cars with hidden defects.

Akerlof uses the used car market as a metaphor: the seller knows the true condition of the car best, while the buyer finds it difficult to discern and can only bid based on “average quality.” As a result, owners of quality cars are unwilling to sell, and lemons push good cars out of the market, leading to a decline in overall quality.

In crypto, project teams understand token distribution, unlock schedules, and market-making arrangements better than ordinary people, resulting in “high-quality scarcity and low-quality abundance.”

This theory is not mere theoretical discussion, but an old problem validated by generation after generation of data.

The second cornerstone is the persistent presence of a party that has the ability and motivation to exploit asymmetry.

In traditional securities markets, whoever controls how your orders are routed and executed in what order can more easily “take a little price difference” in places you can't see. Therefore, U.S. regulations require brokers to disclose order routing and fulfill “best execution” obligations, and they can face heavy penalties for failing to do so—such as Robinhood being fined $65 million by the SEC in 2020 for not adequately disclosing rebates and failing to provide customers with the best prices.

This indicates that the control over routing and order will turn into an “invisible cost” that is difficult for retail investors to detect. (sec.gov)

Bringing the same logic onto the chain, more straightforwardly: whoever can change the order of entry may be able to profit by sandwiching your trades in between, which is often referred to in research as “order manipulation.” Numerous papers have systematically documented this kind of “sandwich attack” since 2019, pointing out that it harms the trade quality for ordinary users and can seriously affect consensus stability.

The reason why the right of priority is valuable is that it converts “the sequence of time” into “certain benefits.”

This is the MEV attack you often hear about. “A Comprehensive Analysis of MEV Sandwich Attacks: The Fatal Chain from Ordering to Flash Swapping” is my detailed breakdown of a MEV attack, which caused traders to lose a total of $215,000.

The third cornerstone is a loose or lagging external environment.

When an activity does the same thing as traditional finance but exists outside of regulation, it essentially provides predators with a “low-risk, high-reward” enclave.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) released two sets of final recommendations in 2023-2024, one for crypto and digital asset service providers (18 points) and one for DeFi (9 points). The core idea is to clearly delineate the red line of “same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes”: if you are engaging in risks that need to be managed in the securities market, you should bear similar constraints regarding conflict of interest, information disclosure, and market manipulation.

In other words, the fences of the system are being patched, but there are indeed gaps, and predators are best at thriving in those gaps. (iosco.org)

1.2 Weaponizing “Complexity”

Information asymmetry is not always “natural”; many times it is deliberately magnified.

The 2008 financial crisis is a ready-made textbook on “complexity”: slicing high-risk loans into layered securities, paired with overly optimistic ratings, makes it difficult to understand how much real risk is actually involved; the formal report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) reviewed this chain with a wealth of evidence, concluding plainly — the complex structure obscured the real risks. (fcic-static.law.stanford.edu)

The “complexity” of the crypto world has taken on a new guise: token economics can be written in any form that you don't understand, with permissions, minting, blacklists, taxes, unlocks— as long as there are enough variables, it is almost predetermined that “ordinary people won't understand”. Complexity here is assigned a kind of “mission”: I don't need every investor to understand, as long as the majority do not, the chips can be transferred under conditions that seem fair but are actually highly asymmetric. (Kaiko Research)

“Complexity” has another layer of use: vaporizing responsibility.

When the process is long enough and there are enough roles, each link can say, “I am just following the procedure.” This is exactly the lesson from the old script of “from lending to distribution” in 2008: risks are shattered into pieces, and responsibilities are even more fragmented, making it difficult to find a clear line of accountability when something goes wrong.

Cryptography often replicates this “chain-like” division of labor - issuance, market making, listing, custody, and marketing, which are interconnected yet point to different legal entities. This is also why the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has repeatedly pointed out the serious conflicts of interest in vertical integration. Only by dismantling this layer of “complexity” can we prevent the repeated occurrence of exploitation, which we will discuss in detail later. (iosco.org)

1.3 “Emotions” are “mass-produced”

If the “complexity” makes it hard for you to see clearly, then the “scale production of emotions” makes it hard for you to stop.

Social media platforms have changed the speed and radius of narrative dissemination, allowing “emotions” to be mass-produced like products. Chainalysis's annual report for 2024 shows that in 2023, 54% of the newly listed ERC-20 tokens on DEX exhibited characteristics of “suspected price manipulation”—this does not mean that all of them were scams, but it indicates that the pattern of “scripted hype” is extremely common; at the same time, these tokens together accounted for only 1.3% of the total trading volume on DEX, meaning they are small in quantity but dense and easily manipulable. This aligns perfectly with the business logic of “leveraging small amounts of money to create large volumes, and attracting real liquidity with large volumes.” (Chainalysis)

Even scarier is that the “loudspeaker” is continuously evolving, even becoming automated.

Research in 2023 revealed a crypto “bot army” operating on the X platform, using generative AI to automatically write copy, respond automatically, and drive traffic in bulk to suspicious sites; the technology isn't sophisticated, but the idea is clear: turning the process of “gaining momentum” from a manual workshop into an assembly line.

By 2024 and 2025, the media and on-chain evidence collection agencies further observed that scams and “pig butchering” schemes, aided by AI, are not only not decreasing in scale but are even becoming more “template outsourced.”

When the costs of “script” and “emotion” are driven to extremely low levels, the information waterfall will continuously push people towards that familiar place—rushing in at the most bustling moment, getting stuck in front of the most crowded exit. (WIRED)

1.4 Summary

When you look at these three major pieces together, it becomes clear: many times, it's not that you have bad luck, but that “more powerful people” have turned information asymmetry into a business, used complexity as a weapon, and made emotions into mass-produced products. As long as “control” and “profit distribution” are not aligned, this game will continue to repeat itself round after round—whether it's the CDOs on Wall Street or memes on the blockchain.

You may ask: Everything has a beginning and an end, when will the “plunder” in the cryptocurrency world come to an end?

2. Does the “plundering” in the crypto world have an end?

Yes, but the “plunder” has never disappeared on its own. The order of the capital market is almost always the scar that grows when the wounds are stitched up. Today's plunder in the cryptocurrency world is just a replica of the stock market. Knowing how the plunder in the stock market came to an end, the timeline for the cryptocurrency world is not hard to guess.

The End of Stock Market “Plunder”

The stock market in the last century was like this: the “Black Thursday” of 1929 brought Wall Street down from its pedestal, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average subsequently fell all the way to 1932, with a cumulative decline of nearly 90%. Bank failures and a collapse of confidence eventually led to the creation of the Securities Act (1933) and the Securities Exchange Act (1934), as well as the now well-known SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission).

The mission of this institution is very simple: to protect investors, maintain a fair and orderly market, and promote financing - its emergence marks a turning point: the capital market is moving from the “jungle of barbaric growth” to a “regulated playing field.”

Crisis - Legislation - Re-evolution is a rhythm that has repeatedly appeared in the stock market over the past century.

Looking back at China, it is the same. The “Shenzhen 8·10” incident in 1992 almost halved the newly born stock market in just a few days, directly leading to the establishment of the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) in October of the same year, shifting from a testing ground where “anyone could give it a try” to a market with “regulatory thresholds.” The picture below shows people queuing to purchase new stock subscription lottery tickets during the incident.

So, when we ask “Is there an end to the plunder in the crypto world?” a more accurate way to put it is:

Yes, but they won't come on their own.

From the footprints of the stock market, the end usually appears after great turmoil, marked by systematic rules, disclosures, and “brakes” being sewn in.

Where is the way out for the cryptocurrency circle 2.2

The plan is actually ready; the key lies in its implementation.

In November 2023, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) released 18 final recommendations for the cryptocurrency and digital asset market (CDA), translating the “well-established practices” from traditional securities markets into the crypto scene:

The same activities and the same risks should have the same regulatory outcomes.

These recommendations address the “old problems” faced by the majority of the cryptocurrency sector: the vertical integration conflicts of centralized service providers (CASPs), market manipulation and insider trading, custody and client asset segregation, technical and operational risks, as well as the suitability and marketing boundaries for retail users. IOSCO's press release emphasizes the principle of “same activities, same risks, same regulatory outcomes” and includes a complete report. (iosco.org)

In December of the same year, IOSCO presented 9 final recommendations in the direction of DeFi, breaking down the seemingly unowned territory of “decentralization” into accountable “Responsible Persons:”

Whoever designs the product, operates the front end, and collects fees should undertake the corresponding obligations of information disclosure, risk management, and cross-border collaboration.

The accompanying Umbrella Note explains how the two sets of proposals for CDA and DeFi can interconnect—whether you are a centralized platform, an organizer, distributor, or front-end operator of smart contracts, as long as you are engaged in similar securities market activities, you should fall under the same outcome-oriented regulatory framework.

This is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach, but rather bringing over the “expected results”: what you have done should align with the results. All original texts can be downloaded and verified on the IOSCO official website. (iosco.org)

If you imagine the “post-landing cryptocurrency world”, the scene wouldn't be very unfamiliar:

• Transaction orders must have clear boundaries, similar to the “prohibition of inferior price transactions” in traditional markets, to avoid putting ordinary people in the middle as much as possible;
• Information disclosure must shift from “a beautifully crafted white paper” to “an auditable fact sheet,” laying out token distribution, unlocking schedules, contract permissions, and stakeholder interests.
• Conflicts of interest should either be isolated or let prices compete — whoever holds the priority/traffic rights will make this part of the profit public and competitive, returning the fees to users instead of letting them disappear into a black box.

The stock market terms you are familiar with, such as “brake”, “no inferior price transaction”, and “broker - proprietary trading isolation”, have transferable shadows in the crypto world. The reason why the two sets of recommendations from IOSCO are called “results-oriented” is that they do not insist on whether you are using a blockchain or a database; they only inquire about what financial functions you have achieved, allowing you to align with the same order and responsibilities. (sec.gov)

2.3 Summary

Of course, the end of “plunder” will not come on its own. The order of the stock market grows after significant declines, scandals, and costs; the crypto world will not skip the “growing pains.”

But the good news is: this time we are not starting from scratch; the ready-made toolbox is already laid out on the table—reports, terms, processes, disclosure templates, and even the bridge on “how to connect centralized and decentralized” has already been written.

What remains is how the industry and regulation can twist them into reality: hand over the speed of narrative to technology and the bottom line of order to rules. Once these nails are firmly hammered in, although “plunder” will not completely disappear, it will become increasingly expensive, difficult, and less worthwhile.

However, you must remember that before the “plunder” disappears, it is also the most dangerous moment.

3. At present, you need a resilient investment philosophy

Resilience is not about whether one can “predict the highs and lows,” but whether there is a system in place that does not self-destruct in any market condition.

It consists of three principles:

Only invest in targets willing to hold for ten years; turn information asymmetry into a structured due diligence process; remove leverage from the dictionary.

3.1 Only invest in coins that are willing to hold for ten years.

“Willing or not to take 10 years” is the gate, and behind the gate is the definition.

Benjamin Graham defined investing as “the operation of laying out money, with the expectation of receiving a return on that amount, based on thorough analysis that assures safety of principal; operations not meeting these requirements are speculative.” This is not just motivational talk, but rather shifts the question from “how much can I earn” to “what am I actually buying.” (Novel Investor)

You are willing to take assets that usually have clear purposes, sustainable cash flow, or network effects for ten years; those that cannot pass this test are mostly just the next wave of “excitement.” The value of this dividing line lies in forcing you to first answer “What am I buying?” rather than “How much can I earn?”

The data also reminds us not to overestimate our “speed of execution.” A classic large-sample study tracked 66,465 household accounts: the more frequently trades are made, the worse the returns; the most “diligent” group had an annualized return of only 11.4%, while the market benchmark was 17.9%. The same is true at the institutional level: the S&P SPIVA scorecard shows that in 2024, 65% of large-cap active funds in the U.S. underperformed the S&P 500; extending the time frame shows an even higher proportion of underperformance.

In plain language: make fewer decisions, but make the right ones. (faculty.haas.berkeley.edu)

3.2 Reverse “information asymmetry” to “I understand before participating”

In cryptocurrency, “complexity” is often used as armor: permissions, taxes, blacklists, issuance, unlock tables… The more variables there are, the easier it is to keep ordinary people out. Instead of passively taking hits, it is better to streamline the due diligence process and take control of the odds.

The first step is to look at the supply structure: put the fully diluted valuation (FDV) - circulating ratio - unlock schedule on the same sheet. Multiple verifiable studies have long recorded a common phenomenon: before and after large-scale unlocks, increased volatility and weakening prices are more common, and the larger the unlock, the more obvious the pressure. You can definitely cross-reference Kaiko's quarterly/annual research with TokenUnlocks' schedule to first determine “who will provide selling pressure in the coming months” (Kaiko Research; TokenUnlocks).

Step two: Conduct a contract inspection: You can use tools like De.Fi Scanner for a quick one-click inspection to filter out potential risks quickly - they are not audits, but they are sufficient to highlight obvious pitfalls in advance (as shown in the picture below).

If you want to further understand the issues with contracts, you can use AI for further analysis. In “Beginner's Guide: How to Avoid the “Hundredfold Coin” Trap,” I explained in detail how to use ChatGPT to discover that the TOMMI project not only has backdoors but also carries the risk of being blacklisted.

The third step is to control the execution of transactions and remove yourself from the “sandwiched” queue. First, use an aggregator to compare prices; use whoever can provide a better actual executable price.

On EVM chains: I often use 1inch (including Fusion/RFQ) and Odos (Protected Swaps). The former allows for market maker quotes, while the latter provides MEV protection routing (as shown in the figure below), which can significantly reduce slippage and “sandwich” attacks.

On Solana, Jupiter's routing capabilities, along with Titan, can reduce the probability of being front-run just as effectively as private channels. Regardless of the chain, tightening slippage, breaking down large amounts, and prioritizing channels with MEV protection / private memory pools are all forms of “physical isolation” that you can implement right now.

In simple terms, it means to first understand the three things: “supply - authority - execution,” and then decide whether to take action. By doing this, you have transformed most of the information asymmetry into your own certainty.

3.3 Remove “leverage” from your dictionary.

Leverage is the trigger that amplifies normal fluctuations into a “liquidation”.

The Financial Stability Board's assessment bluntly states: the automatic liquidation mechanisms of crypto CEX and DeFi, the collateral chains, and pseudo-anonymous leverage make forced deleveraging during downturns more contagious and self-amplifying; once the price touches the liquidation threshold, machines will decide before humans, thus amplifying the decline.

The history is also quite clear: a 30%–50% pullback for Bitcoin during a bull market is not unusual, and an 80% pullback from the peak to the bear bottom has occurred multiple times throughout its complete cycle, as shown in the figure below.

So first set a life and death line for yourself: do not use leverage, especially do not hand over your right to survive to the liquidation engine; then reduce your position and frequency to a level where you can “sleep well.”

3.4 Summary

The data on the chain has long reminded us: the noise often outweighs the substance, and the exit is often very narrow; while order and compound interest require slowness and patience.

Resilience is not about sharpening yourself into a blade, but about putting on “armor.”

Don't gamble against the structural advantages of the “Predators”.

Conclusion: Through the Jungle, Seeing Order and Long-term

Pull the camera back, and you will see two forces advancing simultaneously:

On one side, gold mining and plunder are taking turns to perform, while on the other side, order is slowly but steadily growing.

The “from disorder to order” in the crypto world has entered the construction phase - the outcome-oriented framework of IOSCO is being implemented, compliance rules in Europe are accelerating formation, and compliant capital is beginning to converge with on-chain infrastructure.

Stablecoins turn cross-border clearing and settlement into a “real-time, programmable” public pipeline, while ETFs and tokenized assets bring trust and auditing back on-site.

All these changes convey the same message:

Plunder is not the endgame, order is approaching; bubbles are not everything, value is being solidified.

However, before the rules are fully established, you still need to put on your armor and avoid betting against structural advantages.

Remember: Give speed to others, keep survival for yourself; cycles are fickle, compound interest has patience.

When order is restored, the advantage will shift from “speed” to “patience and discipline,” and you will be glad you stood on the side of the long slope with thick snow.