Dexe price

Yesterday, CZ said that the CMC altcoin season index is rising, and the FOMO season is about to arrive. Today, altcoins are bleeding heavily. With one shout, BNB underperformed BTC. I took a look, and the top position of this CMC index has been changing recently, but the last place PUMP has been dominating the charts for several days.

Even the founders themselves can't figure out what MM is doing 🔥 One of the most opaque, overlooked, and often disastrous aspects of the Crypto market is the "relationship between market makers and project parties." Every once in a while, a story of "we were by market makers" will pop up: the currency price plummeted by 90%, the founder tweeted and scolded, and there was a commotion in the community... And then there is no more. There is no follow-up investigation, no transparent explanation, and no standard process. Even basic information symmetry does not exist. In the past year, many projects have fallen into this situation. Some founders accuse large market makers of being the culprit behind the collapse of currency prices, but outsiders have no way of knowing the truth. This kind of operation not only hurts investors, but also causes injustice to teams that really want to do long-term projects. Is this serious? 😱 Because market maker agreements often involve: • Liquidity provision of coins • Whether to commit to a no-dump agreement (or vice versa: dump service) • Whether to hold team assets • Conditions for capital leverage and position operations But today you buy a token, and most of the time, you don't even know what these basic protocols look like. It's like buying a company's stock, but you don't know its issuance, no financial reports, and even the directors and supervisors are. This is not a technical problem, but an institutional problem. 😭 The current structure allows: 1. Sign an agreement between the project party and MM that is not equal, non-standard, or even implicit selling pressure conditions 2. Market makers have a high degree of operational freedom and can even conduct "bilateral trading" on CEX (two-handed mutual fighting, price control) 3. In the event of a collapse, the founder can dump the MM; MM said, "We just follow the instructions" - the two sides kick each other's balls In the end, it will always be retail investors who have no information and no channels. What changes do we need? In the future, this information should be regarded as a basic disclosure obligation, just like "total token amount" and "founder unlock schedule": •The project team should disclose the key terms of the market-making agreement (such as selling pressure restrictions, whether MM holds coins, whether to sell, etc.) •CEXs should establish listing standards and reject projects that do not disclose the details of MM cooperation •If the project party accuses MM, it should be accompanied by concrete evidence rather than emotional speech, otherwise it will mislead the community Even for "quality market makers", establishing transparent disclosure standards is beneficial: letting the market know who is a decent liquidity provider and who is the exit agent who secretly dumps coins. Epilogue: You won't buy a token today with no unlock timeline, so why buy a project that is not even transparent about market maker terms? If even the founders themselves can't figure out what MM is doing, they can only post and scold based on speculation - then we, as external participants, can't even judge the basic risks. This industry needs not only technological innovation, but also the upgrade of institutional design and transparent governance.

Wintermute is providing liquidity for $PUMP The wintermute effect :