I stared at the PIPPIN asset all night last night.
To be honest: as long as the principal is thick enough, theoretically you can make money by shorting - your opponent's position is the funding fee. I'm also struggling with whether to go short.
I can't say that the on-chain trading volume is all fake. This thing has been on the popularity list for quite a long time, and everyone understands that the crypto space has never lacked new retail investors. The heat in the primary market is also quite strange. If the trading volume is real, then it’s likely that the market makers are controlling the rhythm to protect their positions—eating the funding fees is one aspect, but the main goal is to find someone to take over the spot. During the upward movement, there are definitely retail investors buying spot, and there are also people selling above, and most of these chips have likely been taken away by the market makers.
Let’s do the math: assuming the dealer has a position of 15 million, with a funding rate of 0.004 per hour, the hourly profit would be approximately 60,000 U. This amount of money simply cannot support the expenses of maintaining the primary market.
So this sideways position is quite puzzling now. I can think of two paths:
**Path One**: Consolidating to absorb shorts, preparing for the next round of rally.
**Path Two**: Sideways movement allows spot trading to take action + Increase in short positions.
I personally prefer the second option. From the perspective of retail investors: if you bought spot at 1000U and the price is stagnant, you probably wouldn't be in a hurry to sell, right? As more retail investors adopt this mindset, the chips in the hands of the whales will gradually be distributed, and they can simply crash the market.
If we take the second route, what the dealer needs to do is to stabilize the market - keep the price steady. When there is overselling, buy back the chips to support the price, and then continuously place sell orders. Now the on-chain data looks like this approach.
Change perspective: If I were the dealer, wouldn't it be equivalent to getting people on board if I consolidate at this position? What if the market cap is pushed to 500 million later, and those retail investors who bought the spot at a 200 million order book start dumping? This selling pressure is the risk that must be cleared in advance.
During the process of a price surge, it is inevitable for retail investors to buy spot assets. Therefore, in general, market makers handle this situation by making a quick rally—trying to prevent retail investors from acquiring too many bottom shares. Distributing shares at this position is actually quite risky.
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.
20 Likes
Reward
20
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ruggedNotShrugged
· 12-05 19:44
I think this guy is overcomplicating things. To put it simply, they're just waiting for a dump.
The cost of propping up the price can't be covered at all; the funding fees are nowhere near enough.
Right now, it's just a playground for bag holders. The longer retail investors hold during the sideways market, the more comfortable it is for them—until everyone gets hit when the dump comes.
View OriginalReply0
DegenRecoveryGroup
· 12-05 05:38
I've seen this sideways market support trick too many times. The key is still how many chips the big players actually hold.
Distributing now is indeed risky. If you ask me, just dumping the price directly would be simpler.
I don't dare to touch spot in this round; I'll just keep earning funding fees until I can't take it anymore.
View OriginalReply0
Rugpull幸存者
· 12-02 21:51
Another project waiting to play people for suckers? Sideways is poison, don't touch it.
---
The funding fee is eating 60,000 U, haha, this cost can't bear the retail investor's selling pressure at all.
---
I agree with the distribution of chips, those entering Spot now are just here to give away money.
---
I just want to know who the hell is still buying this broken coin, wake up everyone.
---
Both paths lead to death, which one to choose?
---
I'm not touching this shorting job anymore, I'm really afraid of being played for a sucker.
---
If the market maker were really that smart, they would have been financially free long ago, don't overthink people.
---
This position is just a big pit, let's wait and see, it might drop to zero directly.
View OriginalReply0
GhostChainLoyalist
· 12-02 21:49
Hmm, I have to refute this logic. Has the market maker calculated the cost of distributing chips? The urgent pump is the last way out.
Sideways itself is a trap; retail investors can't hold on.
Damn, this data looks a bit off... Why does it feel like it's laying a carpet for the dumb buyer?
Can the funding fee really sustain the Market Stabilization cost? I think it's deceiving.
Sixty thousand U in this hour sounds quite tempting, but it really can't support the Primary Market.
Retail investors buying the dip still expect to come out alive? Dream on, brother.
The chips that were pumped up haven't been cleared out properly; get ready for a bloodbath when you get out, everyone.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseHomeless
· 12-02 21:35
Bro, this analysis has some substance, but I think you underestimate the resilience of retail investors.
Can’t afford the funding fee for market stabilization? That just means the spot market is the real cash cow, and the market makers don’t care how the short orders die.
I’ve heard the logic of sideways market makers too many times, and what’s the result? There have been quite a few direct plummets.
If you ask me, just keep an eye on the on-chain wallet movements; that stuff can’t fool people.
View OriginalReply0
HuangZizhao
· 12-02 21:25
-0.7 fee rate
View OriginalReply0
BankruptcyArtist
· 12-02 21:22
I have to say that the analysis from the bankrupt artist this time—there's indeed something to it, but I still think you overcomplicated it.
Looking at this sideways movement, to put it bluntly, the market maker is just waiting for suckers to pay tuition. Talking about market stabilization or not, there’s no capital to discuss this.
💥Risk Warning💥
I stared at the PIPPIN asset all night last night.
To be honest: as long as the principal is thick enough, theoretically you can make money by shorting - your opponent's position is the funding fee. I'm also struggling with whether to go short.
I can't say that the on-chain trading volume is all fake. This thing has been on the popularity list for quite a long time, and everyone understands that the crypto space has never lacked new retail investors. The heat in the primary market is also quite strange. If the trading volume is real, then it’s likely that the market makers are controlling the rhythm to protect their positions—eating the funding fees is one aspect, but the main goal is to find someone to take over the spot. During the upward movement, there are definitely retail investors buying spot, and there are also people selling above, and most of these chips have likely been taken away by the market makers.
Let’s do the math: assuming the dealer has a position of 15 million, with a funding rate of 0.004 per hour, the hourly profit would be approximately 60,000 U. This amount of money simply cannot support the expenses of maintaining the primary market.
So this sideways position is quite puzzling now. I can think of two paths:
**Path One**: Consolidating to absorb shorts, preparing for the next round of rally.
**Path Two**: Sideways movement allows spot trading to take action + Increase in short positions.
I personally prefer the second option. From the perspective of retail investors: if you bought spot at 1000U and the price is stagnant, you probably wouldn't be in a hurry to sell, right? As more retail investors adopt this mindset, the chips in the hands of the whales will gradually be distributed, and they can simply crash the market.
If we take the second route, what the dealer needs to do is to stabilize the market - keep the price steady. When there is overselling, buy back the chips to support the price, and then continuously place sell orders. Now the on-chain data looks like this approach.
Change perspective: If I were the dealer, wouldn't it be equivalent to getting people on board if I consolidate at this position? What if the market cap is pushed to 500 million later, and those retail investors who bought the spot at a 200 million order book start dumping? This selling pressure is the risk that must be cleared in advance.
During the process of a price surge, it is inevitable for retail investors to buy spot assets. Therefore, in general, market makers handle this situation by making a quick rally—trying to prevent retail investors from acquiring too many bottom shares. Distributing shares at this position is actually quite risky.