2026-01-08 17:29:15

Investors who have recently been paying attention to RIVER may have noticed a rather painful phenomenon: points have plummeted from a high of 25,000 to 1,400, a decline of over 90%. The underlying issues behind this are not simple— the risk of liquidity exhaustion is gradually becoming apparent.

To be honest, the current risks are indeed quite significant. The funds in the pool are clearly insufficient, which directly affects the exchange value of the points. The original gameplay that allowed earning benefits through points has basically become ineffective, and the only remaining option now is to use them for exchanges.

The official mandatory staking policy further restricts flexibility. Once staked, the liquidity of the points is essentially lost, which means increased passive risk for many participants.

Regarding the choice of staking period, this is indeed a matter that requires careful consideration. 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, or 12 months—all have different risk-reward trade-offs. Shorter periods have relatively manageable liquidity risks, but longer periods may face greater uncertainty. How to choose specifically depends on your risk tolerance and your judgment of the market outlook.

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CounterIndicator

· 01-11 17:06

90% decline... This wave of RIVER really taught me a lesson; liquidity exhaustion is the deadliest. Staking is like burying your points alive. I’d rather choose a short-term strategy to survive. This tactic somewhat resembles the manipulator’s way of cutting leeks.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinEnjoyer

· 01-11 14:44

90% decline... This is what I call a leek harvester, I already ran away. Staking my ass, with no liquidity left, still staking—typical fight of a trapped beast. Instead of worrying about the cycle, better ask yourself how much more you can afford to lose.

View OriginalReply0

SybilAttackVictim

· 01-10 14:59

90% decline... This is just outrageous, feels like the project team is playing big Locking liquidity through staking is basically betting on the future market, I wouldn't dare to gamble The official move this time is indeed a bit forced, having no choice is really uncomfortable If you ask me, three months is still safer; locking for such a long time is mentally exhausting

View OriginalReply0

GhostAddressHunter

· 01-09 20:54

90% decline, what's the point of playing around, liquidity is completely gone. But to be honest, the forced staking move is really disgusting; once locked, there's no flexibility at all. Short-term staking has lower risk, but who knows what will happen later, it still depends on how much risk you can bear.

View OriginalReply0

FUD_Vaccinated

· 01-08 17:59

90% decline? How outrageous is that, the pool is almost dry That staking move was really clever, locking it up completely, liquidity is gone I really can't understand what the officials are trying to do, who would dare to keep playing like this

View OriginalReply0

CoffeeNFTs

· 01-08 17:57

A 90% decline is really unsustainable. This is textbook liquidity trap. Staking is locked, so what’s the point of talking about returns? It’s purely being trapped. I really don’t dare to touch projects with mandatory staking. It feels like being shackled before even getting on the bus. Short-term staking has low risk but also little meaning. Long-term staking is basically gambling with your life—classic dilemma. Points dropping from 25,000 to 1,400—how desperate is that? The official move this time is really a bit excessive.

View OriginalReply0

Deconstructionist

· 01-08 17:57

A 90% drop... What does that mean? Isn't it just the old trick of cutting leeks? Liquidity exhaustion, in simple terms, the officials just want to trap your coins and then slowly harvest. I stopped paying attention to RIVER a long time ago; it's too outrageous. Forced staking? I just smile. Isn't that essentially a covert freeze?

View OriginalReply0

StableNomad

· 01-08 17:54

90% drawdown? statistically speaking, that's giving UST collapse vibes. reminds me why i stopped yield farming in '21

Reply0

token_therapist

· 01-08 17:49

A 90% drop... that's just crazy. It feels like either the project team is dragging their feet or it's time to get out. Staking starts with a lock of just three months—who can stand that? Losing liquidity is no different from being trapped. Short-term insurance but low returns, long-term betting on the market... frankly, it's still a gambler's game. I think those entering now are just picking up the bagholders. Everyone should be more cautious.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 01-08 17:44

90% decline? I just laughed. This is the daily routine in the crypto world. Everyone has seen pools dry up, the key is not to get stuck and lose everything. How to choose the staking period? My suggestion is to consider how much you can afford to lose. Anyway, long-term staking is just betting that the officials won't run away. No liquidity, still want to earn yields? Uh, dream on. Forced staking is really a killer move. Freezing all your coins and still making you lose sleep. Basically, it's a game of hot potato. Now no one is willing to take over. From 25,000 to 1,400? I've seen worse. Keep observing, my friend. This tactic is very old-fashioned. The officials suddenly push policies to restrict withdrawals. Are they buying time or what?

View OriginalReply0