2026-01-04 18:21:06

Recently, some spot market anomalies have been observed, and the tactics are quite obvious. Taking the recent market situation as an example, you can see the clues by comparing data during this time period.

In the 0:00-0:15 segment, the trading volume was 1 million, and the price remained relatively stable. But in the 0:15-0:30 cycle, the trading volume actually dropped to 800,000, while the price suddenly plummeted by 40%. Immediately after, from 0:30-0:45, it surged by 60%, and the entire process was inexplicable.

This does not conform to normal market logic. Under normal circumstances, if the price drops by 40%, you should see a significant increase in trading volume, right? But instead, the trading volume was even lower than usual.

The only explanation for this phenomenon is that the project team suddenly withdrew a large number of buy and sell orders behind the scenes. Disorderly operations in a short period created this exaggerated price fluctuation.

Usually, if the K-line shows a trading volume of 2 million, and suddenly there is a 4-10 million trading volume with big rises and falls, I can understand that. But in this case, the trading volume is not even higher than usual, yet the price has dropped significantly—that's hard to explain.

View Original

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PrivateKeyParanoia

· 11h ago

Trading volume actually decreases and still drops by 40%? This is obviously playing tricks; the project team is probably scheming behind the scenes.

View OriginalReply0

LonelyAnchorman

· 19h ago

Trading volume decreases but still drops 40% suddenly? This is obviously a pump manipulation by the whales, it's outrageous. --- This data clearly shows someone is playing tricks; normal logic simply doesn't hold. --- Wow, with such low trading volume, the price drops so sharply. It can only mean there's a hand behind the scenes manipulating it. --- I've seen this kind of contradiction before; it's definitely the project team accumulating funds while creating panic, old trick. --- Trading volume of 800,000 dropping sharply? That's not a good sign, brother. --- This is damn ridiculous. Such candlestick data is just bullying retail investors; it's obviously fake at a glance.

View OriginalReply0

SighingCashier

· 19h ago

The trading volume is actually decreasing, and it can still drop another 40%? That's hilarious. Clearly, it's just the big players accumulating.

View OriginalReply0

AllInAlice

· 19h ago

Here we go again, the trading volume actually decreases and the price crashes? Clearly someone is playing tricks. With the trading volume down, why did the price drop 40%? That logic doesn't add up. Manipulating the market behind the project is old news; everyone’s just afraid of getting caught. This kind of reverse operation is the most disgusting, losing positions still get cut. Low trading volume and still able to dump? Where's the supposed market rule? Purely cutting the leeks. A 40% drop with a trading volume of 800,000? Man, these numbers are interesting. Wait, isn't it like this now? Less trading volume, but more volatility. It's the same old story, short-term leeks should reflect on themselves.

View OriginalReply0

MondayYoloFridayCry

· 19h ago

Oh man, I've seen this trick too many times. The trading volume actually drops and then crashes by 40%? Clearly, someone is playing tricks.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedNotStirred

· 19h ago

This is a typical liquidity mining trap—trading volume decreases and prices plummet? Clearly suspicious.

View OriginalReply0

ValidatorViking

· 19h ago

volume dried up but price tanked 40%? that's not market mechanics, that's someone pulling strings behind the curtains. seen this pattern too many times in the validator trenches—consensus breaks when the data doesn't match the narrative.

Reply0