On-chain revelations claim that market makers use same-name platforms to wash out weak hands

On-chain traders have claimed that primary market makers can reopen same-name platforms at extremely low costs to wash out small buyers who have acquired early tokens. They state that even if retail investors buy only $100, the cost for market makers to reopen a platform is often only tens to hundreds of dollars in network fees, which is cheaper than lifting the price with opposing orders.

This revelation presents the story of "early addresses investing $100 and making millions" as a promotional template to attract later investors, rather than a verifiable common profit path. English research has similarly documented self-buying and selling to inflate volume, synchronized funding across multiple wallets, and using false transactions to pave the way for subsequent listings and narratives.

In the secondary market, the revelation claims that market makers will use time, hacking, large early unlocks, and significant issuance to drive away hidden orders, then raise prices when the tokens are sparse. In public cases, unlocks and large transfers to exchanges are often treated as sell pressure signals; however, similar transfers can also be for wash trading, splitting positions, or inducing opposing orders, and a single on-chain transfer cannot be used as a basis for opening positions.

The revelation also states that clear addresses, large withdrawals in single or a few transactions, and concentrated token inflows to exchanges, paired with "sell-off signals" narratives, are ways to find opposing orders. English investigations have categorized synchronized large deposits followed by concentrated selling and high volume stagnation as suspected coordinated selling or wash trading, rather than ordinary market making rebalancing.

The operational conclusion provided is that when a token is covered by high-frequency, similarly significant positive news in a short time, it is often looking for liquidity to sell; most traders should assume that related reports have a stance, cross-verify, and not treat news flashes as opening signals.

In market mechanisms, buyers are retail liquidity chasing after hundred-fold screenshots and sell-offs after negative news, while sellers are internal market tokens and exchange depth. The event is driven by market maker inventory and promotional rhythm, with funds flowing from later buyers to those who can reopen platforms, inflate volume, and control unlock narratives; benefiting are the market makers who can invalidate a platform for a few dozen dollars in network fees, while pressured are traders who treat media headlines as position signals.

The U.S. Department of Justice has previously sued market makers for wash trading and collusion in cases like NexFundAI, and on-chain analysis has repeatedly pointed out high internal warehouse ratios, unilateral reassignments, and the same script of wash trading followed by sell-offs. These are publicly known structural methods, not validations of a specific Chinese revelation.

Source: Public Information