A "textbook-level harvest" has been thoroughly exposed 📉

On-chain detective ZachXBT recently reviewed the RAVE collapse incident:
👉 Dropped about 95% within 24 hours
👉 From $26 straight down to $1
👉 Billions of market value evaporated in just a few hours 💥

Even more outrageous—
A liquidation volume of only $52 million wiped out about $6 billion in market value.
This is no longer "market fluctuation," but a typical structural problem.

💡 The core issue was directly exposed:

• About 9 related addresses control 95% of the circulating supply ⚠️
• Suspicious transfer of funds through centralized platforms
• Surged into top market cap within just 10 days of launch → then suddenly crashed

In one sentence:
👉 This is not market pricing; it’s a manipulation game.

It’s not just RAVE; similar patterns are seen in projects like: SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN, RIVER…
Indicating this might not be an isolated case but a “pattern.”

📈 From an industry perspective (positive):

• Exposure of the dark side helps the market gradually purify 🔍
• On-chain data transparency makes manipulation harder to hide long-term
• Pushes exchanges and project teams to improve review and risk control standards
• Long-term benefits for the survival of truly high-quality projects

⚠️ But the risks are more direct in reality:

• Highly controlled projects are essentially "time bombs"
• Retail investors are easily harvested under information asymmetry
• Platform responses are slow, and losses are often borne by users
• “High market cap ≠ safety,” and may even be a trap

🧠 My view:

What’s truly worth thinking about in this incident is not RAVE itself, but a harsher reality—

👉 In many small coins, the price is not “market consensus,” but “a script written by a few people.”

You see the candlestick charts; they see the distribution of chips.

📌 One sentence summary:
When 95% of the chips are controlled by a few, the so-called market trend is just a harvest path designed by others ⚠️