2025年3月25日，币安的一纸公告再次将加密市场的“做市商黑箱”推上风口浪尖。Movement（MOVE）项目的做市商被曝通过恶意抛售6600万枚代币获利3800万美元，而这已是继GPS、Shell代币暴跌后，币安年内第三次公开披露做市商违规操作。这场连环暴雷背后，不仅暴露了行业积弊的冰山一角，更掀开了交易所、项目方与资本之间的隐秘博弈。
​一、事件复盘：从MOVE到GPS，Web3port的“...

<div><div><h3> </h3>2025年3月25日，币安的一纸公告再次将加密市场的“做市商黑箱”推上风口浪尖。Movement（MOVE）项目的做市商被曝通过恶意抛售6600万枚代币获利3800万美元，而这已是继GPS、Shell代币暴跌后，币安年内第三次公开披露做市商违规操作。这场连环暴雷背后，不仅暴露了行业积弊的冰山一角，更掀开了交易所、项目方与资本之间的隐秘博弈。<h2>​一、事件复盘：从MOVE到GPS，Web3port的“教科书级收割”​</h2>1. MOVE崩盘：一场精密的流动性狙击战<img alt="交易所" src="https://hx24-prod.mars-block.com/image/crawler/2025/03/26/1742955081429969.jpg">2024年12月10日，MOVE代币上线币安的第二天，做市商Web3port在几乎没有买单支撑的情况下，集中抛售6600万枚代币（占流通量的3.11%），导致价格闪崩。三个月后，该做市商累计获利3800万美元，最终被币安冻结收益并下架。链上数据显示，Web3port的操作遵循“拿筹码-制造流动性真空-恐慌抛售”的标准路径：<ul><li>​筹码获取：项目方最初向Web3port分配7000万枚MOVE代币，作为流动性支持的对价；</li><li>​抛售时机：选择代币上线次日市场情绪高涨但深度不足的窗口期；</li><li>​收割手法：通过挂单量远超市场承接能力的“卖单墙”制造踩踏效应，低价回购形成二次套利。</li></ul>2. 前传：GPS与Shell的“同款剧本”​<img alt="交易所" src="https://hx24-prod.mars-block.com/image/crawler/2025/03/26/1742955081430198.jpg">这并非Web3port首次登场。2025年3月，GoPlus（GPS）上线币安三天内暴跌80%，做市商抛售7000万枚代币套现4000万美元；Shell 以同样手法腰斩，获利2000万美元。三家项目方均声称“对做市商行为不知情”，但链上资金流向显示，Web3port与项目方存在代币分配协议，且部分地址疑似关联亚洲资本。<h2>​二、未解之谜：谁在操控这场“合规游戏”？</h2>1. 币安的“选择性披露”：监管倒逼还是主动净化？过去一年，币安上线的代币中有超过80%出现“上市即暴跌”现象，但直到2025年3月才集中披露三家做市商违规。这一时间点耐人寻味：<ul><li>​外部压力：2024年SEC起诉币安纵容市场操纵的旧案仍在发酵，主动披露或为换取监管缓和；</li><li>​内部整顿：币安新任合规官David Newns上任后，推动交易所风控系统升级，AI监测模型捕捉到异常交易链；</li><li>​社区倒逼：多个KOL等通过链上数据公开质疑，迫使交易所回应。</li></ul>2. 做市商背锅？项目方与资本的“合谋嫌疑”​尽管Movement基金会声称“3月11日才从币安获知违规”，但链上证据显示：<ul><li>​代币分配漏洞：项目方在空投中仅释放0.6%代币，17个关联地址提前向做市商转移超1亿枚MOVE；</li><li>​利益绑定：Web3port被曝是Movement的“战略合作伙伴”，其母公司Spark Digital Capital曾参与项目早期融资；</li><li>​沉默的资本：做市商获利资金最终流向新加坡和香港的离岸账户，疑似与亚洲VC体系存在分润协议。</li></ul>更讽刺的是，当社区要求项目方起诉做市商时，Movement仅承诺“用冻结资金回购代币”——本质上是用散户亏损的钱“自救”，而非追究责任。3. 行业潜规则：做市商为何成为“收割白手套”？传统金融市场中，做市商需持牌经营且受严格监管，但在加密领域，这一角色却沦为灰色地带的套利工具：<ul><li>​上币门槛：交易所要求项目方提供做市商背书，后者借此索取代币折扣或免费配额；</li><li>​利益输送：做市商通过“保流动性”换取项目方代币，再通过抛售套现，与VC退出形成闭环；</li><li>​监管真空：多数司法辖区未将加密做市商纳入监管，违规成本极低。</li></ul><h2>​三、交易所困局：效率与安全的“不可能三角”​</h2>1. 币安的“两难”​作为行业龙头，币安既要维护交易深度（依赖做市商），又需保障用户利益（打击操纵），但两者往往冲突：<ul><li>​技术局限：尽管引入AI监控，但做市商通过跨链桥、混币器隐匿资金流向，交易所难以实时追踪；</li><li>​利益绑定：头部做市商掌握上币资源，交易所若全面封杀可能导致流动性枯竭；</li><li>​责任转嫁：通过“下架做市商+项目方回购”平息舆论，但未触及代币分配机制等核心问题。</li></ul>2. 其他交易所的“沉默共谋”​相比币安的高调处理，OKX、Bybit等平台对类似事件长期保持沉默。行业分析师指出：<ul><li>​竞争压力：中小交易所依赖做市商刷量维持排名，默许其操纵行为；</li><li>​合规成本：建立链上监控系统和举报机制需要巨额投入，非头部平台无力承担；</li><li>​行业黑箱：做市商常以多个马甲在不同平台操作，单一交易所难以全局监控。</li></ul><h2>​四、行业反思：加密市场如何走出“系统性腐败”？</h2>1. 技术破局：链上透明化能否根治顽疾？<ul><li>​做市商地址公示：强制公开钱包地址，通过Dune等工具实时监控代币流向；</li><li>​智能合约约束：将做市商报酬与代币长期表现挂钩，而非一次性代币分配；</li><li>​DAO治理介入：社区投票决定做市商资格，打破项目方与做市商的单向协议。</li></ul>2. 制度重构：从“野蛮生长”到“持牌经营”​<ul><li>​牌照门槛：参考MiCA法规，要求做市商披露资金实力、交易策略及关联方；</li><li>​司法协作：建立交易所间“做市商黑名单”，联合冻结违规资金；</li><li>​投资者救济：设立行业保障基金，对操纵导致的损失先行赔付。</li></ul>3. 投资者自救：如何识别“做市商陷阱”？<ul><li>​链上侦查：通过Etherscan/BNB Chain浏览器追踪大额代币流向，警惕上线前异常充值；</li><li>​项目尽调：优先选择自建做市团队或与Wintermute等合规机构合作的项目；</li><li>​监管动态：关注SEC等机构对做市商操纵的执法案例，规避高风险平台。</li></ul>﻿<h2>​五、终极拷问：信任崩塌后，加密市场还剩什么？</h2>Movement事件绝非孤例，而是行业系统性腐败的缩影。当交易所、项目方、做市商结成利益同盟，散户便成为这场游戏中唯一的输家。币安此次“断腕式”处理虽展现了改革决心，但若不能从代币分配机制、做市商准入标准等根源入手，类似的收割剧本仍将重演。加密市场的未来，不仅需要更透明的链上数据，更需要一场彻底的利益分配革命。当行业90%的项目依赖做市商“刷量上币”，或许唯有推翻这套扭曲的规则，才能真正走向成熟。</div></div>

币安连环做市商暴雷：一场3800万美元收割背后的加密暗战与行业困局

On March 25, 2025, a Binance announcement once again brought the "market maker black box" of the crypto market into the spotlight. The market maker of the <Movement (MOVE)> project was exposed for profiting $38 million by maliciously selling 66 million tokens, which is the third time Binance has publicly disclosed market maker misconduct this year, following the sharp declines of <GPS> and <Shell> tokens. Behind this chain of market explosions, the incident not only revealed the tip of the iceberg of industry malpractices but also unveiled the hidden game between exchanges, project parties, and capital.
I. Event Replay: From <MOVE> to <GPS>, <Web3port's>...

<div><div><h3> </h3>On March 25, 2025, Binance&#39;s announcement once again put the &quot;black box of market makers&quot; in the crypto market at the forefront. The market maker of the Movement (MOVE) project was exposed to have made a profit of $38 million by maliciously selling 66 million tokens. This is the third time that Binance has publicly disclosed illegal operations by market makers this year, following the plunge of GPS and Shell tokens. Behind this series of thunder, not only the tip of the iceberg of the industry&#39;s accumulated malpractices was exposed, but also the secret game between exchanges, project parties and capital was revealed.<h2> 1. Event review: From MOVE to GPS, Web3port’s “textbook-level harvest”</h2> 1. MOVE Collapse: A Precision Liquidity Sniper War <img alt="Exchanges" src="https://hx24-prod.mars-block.com/image/crawler/2025/03/26/1742955081429969.jpg"> On December 10, 2024, the second day after the MOVE token was listed on Binance, market maker Web3port sold 66 million tokens (3.11% of the circulating supply) with almost no buy orders, causing a price crash. Three months later, the market maker had accumulated a profit of $38 million, and was eventually frozen by Binance and delisted. On-chain data shows that Web3port’s operations follow the standard path of “taking chips – creating a liquidity vacuum – panic selling”:<ul><li> ​Chips acquisition: The project team initially allocated 70 million MOVE tokens to Web3port as consideration for liquidity support;</li><li> ​Selling time: Choose the window period after the token is launched when the market sentiment is high but the depth is insufficient;</li><li> ​Harvesting method: Create a stampede effect by creating a &quot;sell order wall&quot; with a volume of orders far exceeding the market&#39;s ability to bear, and repurchase at a low price to form secondary arbitrage.</li></ul> 2. Prequel: GPS and Shell’s “same script”​ <img alt="Exchanges" src="https://hx24-prod.mars-block.com/image/crawler/2025/03/26/1742955081430198.jpg"> This is not the first time Web3port has appeared. In March 2025, GoPlus (GPS) plummeted 80% in three days after it was launched on Binance, and market makers sold 70 million tokens to cash out $40 million; Shell cut its price in half in the same way, making a profit of $20 million. All three project parties claimed that they were &quot;unaware of the market maker&#39;s behavior&quot;, but the flow of funds on the chain showed that Web3port had a token distribution agreement with the project party, and some addresses were suspected to be related to Asian capital.<h2> 2. Unsolved mystery: Who is manipulating this “compliance game”?</h2> 1. Binance’s “selective disclosure”: regulatory pressure or proactive purification? Over the past year, more than 80% of the tokens listed on Binance experienced a &quot;surge in prices upon listing&quot;, but it was not until March 2025 that the three market makers were collectively disclosed for violating regulations. This timing is intriguing:<ul><li> External pressure: The old case in which the SEC sued Binance for condoning market manipulation in 2024 is still fermenting, and the proactive disclosure may be in exchange for easing of supervision;</li><li> Internal rectification: After Binance’s new compliance officer David Newns took office, he promoted the upgrade of the exchange’s risk control system, and the AI ​​monitoring model captured abnormal transaction chains;</li><li> ​Community pressure: Multiple KOLs publicly questioned the exchange through on-chain data, forcing the exchange to respond.</li></ul> 2. Market makers take the blame? Project owners and investors suspected of collusion​ Although the Movement Foundation claimed that it “learned about the violation from Binance on March 11,” on-chain evidence shows:<ul><li> Token distribution loophole: The project only released 0.6% of the tokens in the airdrop, and 17 associated addresses transferred more than 100 million MOVE to market makers in advance;</li><li> ​Binding of interests: Web3port was revealed to be a &quot;strategic partner&quot; of Movement, and its parent company Spark Digital Capital participated in the early financing of the project;</li><li> ​Silent capital: The market makers’ profit funds eventually flowed to offshore accounts in Singapore and Hong Kong, and there is suspected profit-sharing agreement with the Asian VC system.</li></ul> What’s even more ironic is that when the community asked the project to sue the market maker, Movement only promised to “use frozen funds to buy back tokens” - essentially using the money lost by retail investors to “save themselves” rather than hold them accountable. 3. Unwritten rules of the industry: Why do market makers become “white gloves harvesters”? In traditional financial markets, market makers are required to be licensed and strictly regulated, but in the crypto space, this role has become an arbitrage tool in the gray area:<ul><li> ​Coin listing threshold: The exchange requires the project party to provide market maker endorsement, and the latter uses this to claim token discounts or free quotas;</li><li> ​Benefit transfer: Market makers exchange project tokens for &quot;liquidity maintenance&quot; and then cash out by selling them, forming a closed loop with VC exit;</li><li> Regulatory vacuum: Most jurisdictions do not regulate crypto market makers, and the cost of non-compliance is extremely low.</li></ul><h2> 3. Exchange dilemma: the “Blockchain Trilemma” of efficiency and security</h2> 1. Binance’s Dilemma​ As an industry leader, Binance needs to maintain trading depth (relying on market makers) and protect user interests (fighting manipulation), but the two often conflict:<ul><li> Technical limitations: Despite the introduction of AI monitoring, market makers conceal the flow of funds through cross-chain bridges and coin mixers, making it difficult for exchanges to track in real time;</li><li> ​Binding of interests: Top market makers control the resources for listing coins, and a complete ban on exchanges may lead to a depletion of liquidity;</li><li> ​Responsibility shifting: The public opinion was calmed by &quot;delisting market makers + project party buyback&quot;, but core issues such as the token distribution mechanism were not touched upon.</li></ul> 2. Other exchanges’ “silent collusion”​ Compared with Binance’s high-profile handling, platforms such as OKX and Bybit have remained silent on similar incidents for a long time. Industry analysts pointed out:<ul><li> Competitive pressure: Small and medium-sized exchanges rely on market makers to increase volume and maintain their rankings, condoning their manipulation;</li><li> Compliance costs: Establishing an on-chain monitoring system and reporting mechanism requires huge investment, which non-head platforms cannot afford;</li><li> Industry black box: Market makers often operate on different platforms under multiple aliases, making it difficult for a single exchange to monitor the overall situation.</li></ul><h2> 4. Industry reflection: How can the crypto market get out of “systemic corruption”?</h2> 1. Technological breakthrough: Can on-chain transparency cure chronic diseases?<ul><li> ​Market maker address disclosure: mandatory disclosure of wallet addresses, and real-time monitoring of token flows through tools such as Dune;</li><li> ​Smart contract constraints: Linking market maker compensation to the long-term performance of tokens rather than a one-time token distribution;</li><li> ​DAO governance intervention: The community votes to determine the qualifications of market makers, breaking the one-way agreement between the project party and the market maker.</li></ul> 2. Institutional reconstruction: from &quot;wild growth&quot; to &quot;licensed operation&quot;​<ul><li> ​License threshold: Refer to MiCA regulations, requiring market makers to disclose financial strength, trading strategies and related parties;</li><li> ​Legal cooperation: Establish a &quot;market maker blacklist&quot; between exchanges and jointly freeze illegal funds;</li><li> Investor relief: Establish an industry protection fund to make advance payments for losses caused by manipulation.</li></ul> 3. Investor self-help: How to identify the “market maker trap”?<ul><li> ​On-chain reconnaissance: Track the flow of large amounts of tokens through Etherscan/BNB Chain browsers, and be alert to abnormal recharges before going online;</li><li> ​Project due diligence: Priority will be given to projects that have their own market-making teams or cooperate with compliance institutions such as Wintermute;</li><li> Regulatory trends: Pay attention to enforcement cases against market maker manipulation by the SEC and other agencies, and avoid high-risk platforms.</li></ul>﻿<h2>5. The ultimate question: What is left in the crypto market after the collapse of trust?</h2> The Movement incident is by no means an isolated case, but a microcosm of systemic corruption in the industry. When exchanges, project owners, and market makers form an alliance of interests, retail investors become the only losers in this game. Although Binance&#39;s &quot;self-destructive&quot; treatment this time shows its determination to reform, if it fails to start from the root causes such as the token distribution mechanism and market maker admission standards, similar harvesting scripts will still be repeated. The future of the crypto market requires not only more transparent on-chain data, but also a thorough revolution in the distribution of benefits. When 90% of the projects in the industry rely on market makers to &quot;inflate the volume of tokens&quot;, perhaps only by overthrowing this set of distorted rules can it truly mature.</div></div>

Binance's serial market maker crash: the crypto war and industry dilemma behind a $38 million harvest

Web2 giants have been “eliminating corruption” for more than ten years. What can we learn from them?

It’s finally the turn of Web3 giants to eliminate corruption

<Odaily> Planet News: Regarding Binance's handling of market-making violations for the Movement (MOVE) project, the Movement Network Foundation stated that Movement Network Foundation and Movement Labs were unaware of these actions. They chose to collaborate with this market maker because they had previously supported projects in the Movement ecosystem. They have now severed all relationships with the market maker (including ecosystem partnerships) and contacted other major exchanges to inform them about the ongoing investigation. Throughout the entire incident, the Movement Network Foundation has actively cooperated with Binance and promised to use funds recovered from the market maker to repurchase $MOVE in the open market.

Movement Network Foundation: We were unaware of the behavior of a certain market maker and have cut off all ties

Author: Twitter Blogger Mosi
Compiled by: Tim, PANews
This article represents only the author's views and does not constitute investment advice.

In the crypto, perception is everything. As Plato's cave allegory reveals, many investors are like prisoners trapped in cave shadows - misled by false values deliberately distorted by bad actors. This article will deeply expose how VC-backed project teams systematically implement the following manipulation techniques to pave the way for token price control:
- Make their token's "fake circulation volume" as high as possible.
- Keep the token's "real circulation volume" as low as possible (helping them...)

로이터: 트럼프 가족, 새로운 지주회사 통해 월드 리버티 파이낸셜의 최소 60% 통제

Download app to participate in rewarding events