2026-01-14 20:22:44

Recently, an interesting phenomenon has been observed. Some new account operation patterns are quite套路——completing the transformation from zero to trending within just three months, then opening large positions on a major exchange, and once the positions are closed, they disappear completely.

There's actually quite a lot of food for thought behind this. The hype seems to accumulate naturally, but it actually feels like a carefully designed traffic cycle. During the holding period, activity levels are through the roof; once they exit, they vanish immediately—this pattern is too obvious. Similar操盘痕迹 can always be seen in the fluctuations of top coins like BTC, ETH, and BNB.

Honestly, this kind of套路 in the crypto world is no longer surprising. Traffic monetization, short-term hype harvesting, and with new accounts added, it's easier to割韭菜. Have you guys noticed this kind of situation? Do you think this operation method will become the norm? Feel free to share your thoughts.

BTC2,05%

ETH1,78%

BNB0,45%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlockchainArchaeologist

· 13h ago

How can people still fall for this trick? Freeze quickly in three months—ship out—disappear without a trace, the rhythm is as precise as harvesting leeks.

View OriginalReply0

Anon4461

· 13h ago

I'm already tired of this routine. New accounts take off after three months and then disappear. The scheme is just that simple... The traces of manipulation are too obvious. The activity level and position trends are exactly the same. Do they really think retail investors can't see through it? This has become the norm long ago. The only difference is some people play it smoothly while others are clumsy. The fluctuations behind top coins are all part of these people's game. We're just here to join the ride. To be blunt, isn't this pattern just precise harvesting of retail investors... There's an account I've been watching all along, operating completely according to this logic. It's truly outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureDenied

· 14h ago

Three months from zero to trending, then disappear after closing the position. I'm already tired of this routine. Isn't this just a standard pump-and-dump script, just a bit of packaging? I really think people like this should be permanently banned, but I guess no one cares.

View OriginalReply0

ETHmaxi_NoFilter

· 14h ago

This method of manipulation is becoming more and more obvious. Be cautious when completing the transition from 0 to 1 in three months. --- Damn, it's the same old trick. I'm already tired of it. --- In the fluctuations of top-tier coins, it's all the same flavor. It's a bit disgusting. --- When a new account suddenly gains popularity, it should be abandoned. That's my ironclad rule. --- Closing positions and then disappearing. This rhythm is too rigid. --- The crypto world has long become a traffic harvesting ground. There's nothing surprising about it. --- Once a position is taken, the account dies. Who can't see this logic? --- Claiming it's normal? It's been normal for a long time, okay? --- I've seen too many of these, the routines are like copy-paste. --- Activity level is proportional to position size. It's quite ironic.

View OriginalReply0

bridge_anxiety

· 14h ago

I've seen this routine many times, pumping up the hype for three months and then running when large positions are taken out—typical wool-harvesting rhythm. It's just a mouse trap, just changing disguises to continue. Honestly, now new accounts are mostly premeditated; we've seen through this set in the crypto world. It's indeed easier to spot clues with top-tier coins; a sudden surge in trading volume is no coincidence. After one wave of profit-taking, another wave comes—just repetitive operations, hard to defend against.

View OriginalReply0