$GIGGLE this project is interesting. In the early days, it relied on the concept of "trading as donation" and celebrity endorsements to rapidly attract followers, making people think that crypto trading could also do good deeds, which was a win-win situation. But this kind of hype built on emotions and gimmicks is essentially a blown-up bubble—when the wind comes, it will burst.

In the past week, I have taken a deep dive into on-chain data and identified two warning signals. The first is an imbalance in the distribution of chips. On the surface, $GIGGLE's holder addresses appear fairly decentralized, but in reality, nearly 70% of the chips are locked by short-term retail investors who chased the high, with an average cost in the high range. It's like a group of people lifting a sedan; everyone wants others to do the work, but as the weight increases, the sedan gets heavier—and as soon as someone lets go, the entire team reacts in a chain. Recently, I've observed large-scale movements of addresses holding at high levels, not taking profits but being forced to cut losses. The SOPR indicator has been below 1 for the past three days, indicating that most sellers are currently at a loss.

Under this situation, the market has long shifted from incremental betting to stockpile fighting. Whoever runs out first can preserve their principal. Latecomers taking over are at extremely high risk; a slow step could lead to total loss. The pitfalls in the crypto world are indeed numerous, and this project is a textbook example of a negative case.