Recently, a wave of "market maker exposure" has swept through the crypto world, sparking widespread discussion. As an industry observer, I would like to share some personal insights.



First, we need to understand that market making essentially follows the same logic as data analysis on the Bitcoin secondary chain. Bitcoin analysis focuses on information from dimensions such as long-term and short-term holders, centralized exchange stock, and miners, while market making focuses on the address data of whale investors.

In on-chain analysis, we attempt to identify which addresses belong to market makers and which belong to large retail investors. However, this is not an easy task. For example, just because an address purchased $1 million of a certain token when the market capitalization reached $300 million does not necessarily mean it is a market maker.

The real main force operations often show characteristics of teamwork and matrix formation. These types of addresses usually start buying in batches during the early stages of a project, rather than making a large one-time purchase. When the price rises, you will find that most of the top 100 holding addresses belong to this main force matrix.

However, we should not blindly trust the so-called market maker results. Those who claim "the front row chips are concentrated and ready to rise" are often unreliable. True market makers do not reveal their intentions in advance. Moreover, once the market focus shifts or Bitcoin plummets, these main players often quickly take profits and withdraw, leaving followers to witness significant declines.

Taking Ani coin as an example, its rebound actually does not require excessive interpretation of address data. After a rapid pullback, all popular tokens usually experience at least a doubling rebound. The strength of the rebound mainly depends on Bitcoin's trend and project narrative. This rule has been frequently observed in previous popular meme coins.

Market makers usually do not sell all at once when the price first rises to a peak. They tend to oscillate at high levels 1 to 3 times, gradually selling off, which aligns with rational operational logic.

Therefore, combining market maker analysis with project narratives is undoubtedly a wise move. However, we must also be cautious of over-interpretation to avoid falling into subjective speculation. Remember, blindly analyzing market makers may trigger unexpected market reactions, bringing unnecessary risks to investments.

In the crypto assets market, it is crucial to remain rational and objective. We should view market makers as one of the analytical tools rather than the sole basis for investment decisions. At the same time, continuously paying attention to project fundamentals, market sentiment, and the macro environment is essential to move steadily in this market full of opportunities and challenges.
BTC1.43%
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.
  • Reward
  • 2
  • Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-5854de8bvip
· 07-25 01:45
The crypto world has always been like this, the fate of suckers.
View OriginalReply0
ContractExplorervip
· 07-25 01:35
Everyone says that market makers are powerful, but in the end, they are still played for suckers.
View OriginalReply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate app
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)