Binance just announced that the market maker of the $MOVE project is suspected of malicious dumping, harvesting retail investors, and illegally profiting 38 million USDT, and has been directly banned. Many people will just say, 'deserved it.' But as a retail investor who has been in the market for many years, I want to say - this issue is much more serious than you think.

From another perspective, is the 'evil' of market makers really just individual greed? Is there a possibility that they are simply completing 'legal plunder' accurately in an uncontrolled system? This system is tacitly approved by the platform, is industry default, and we are all in it, powerless to change it.

From the perspective of an ordinary project party, they actually wanted to 'do a good project' at the beginning. Writing white papers, finding technology, building ecosystems, attracting users, and engaging with VCs - all need to be advanced step by step. But once connecting with #Binance for listing becomes the ultimate goal. Because as long as Binance gives the nod, the market cap can soar instantly, and everyone from the team, early investors, market makers, to community managers can start to monetize their tokens. As for the future of the token? Will the ecosystem survive? Sorry, no one cares anymore.

Do you think only $MOVE is like this? Wrong. In the past year, how many new coins on #Binance were not 'peaking at launch'? How many did not start to decline after listing? That's not a bull market correction; it’s harvesting according to the script.

Sister once said in a Space: #Binance does indeed review projects before listing, but after listing, it all relies on the 'conscience' of the project party.

I laughed directly after hearing that. Relying on conscience? This is entrepreneurship, not cultivation; listing a token is the project side's 'monetization outlet.' Market makers are also people, and they want to make money too. What they are best at is using 'contracts + order book + sentiment' in an unmanaged market to cut you down so that you don't even have voting rights left.

We shout about Web3 every day, wanting decentralization and user autonomy. But the reality is, we can't even say 'why' when the coin price is manipulated.

In the end, the most miserable are always us retail investors who 'try to catch the wind.'

You DYOR, research the project, look at the ecosystem, look at the background of investors, but have you DYOR'd against those order-bot manipulators, insider pre-positions, and pre-pricing market-making scripts? Even ETH can slowly make you 'educated' under a compliant narrative.

Retail investors are not stupid; we just never have the first-hand script.

@Yi He @CZ Can we steadily improve the platform's regulatory mechanism? The behavior of project parties and market makers should be included in on-chain/off-chain real-time monitoring mechanisms. Large sell-offs, unilateral liquidity withdrawals, and concentrated abnormal trading should not only be 'investigated' afterwards but should be pre-warned and even trigger freezing protections. Can we require the public disclosure of the roles and authority boundaries of project parties and market makers? Who controls the market, who can adjust positions, who is responsible for market making, should be clearly disclosed. Did the project short itself before listing? Users have the right to know.

Can a 'continuous compliance assessment mechanism' be established after a project goes live? Review shouldn't stop at the launch; whether the project is operating normally, whether funds are released according to purpose, should be included in periodic re-evaluations. Can we regularly publish a list of market makers + make the blacklist mechanism transparent? Which market makers were investigated? For what reason? Will they appear on other tokens in the future? This should be transparent to users. Can we consider allowing users to set a 'listing cooling-off period' mechanism, similar to the 'new stock cooling-off period' in the stock market, allowing users to choose whether to participate in high-volatility token trading during specific time periods, reducing emotional buying?

For retail investors, if they really get cut, what compensation is there afterwards? How much can they get back?

#Binance is the 'super platform' of crypto, and it should bear more responsibility. This is not moral kidnapping but an obligation of power to order. If you have the power to control the fate of listings, you must accept regulatory responsibilities, or the trust in this industry will eventually collapse.

What we want is not a casino where anyone can get rich overnight, but a market that can survive longer and has the opportunity to grow.

If we can't even do this, then we're just retail investors sitting at the poker table, that's all.