#机构投资者入场 Seeing news of institutional continuous entry, I have to say something honest: this wave of predicting a "crypto winter" has indeed shown new changes compared to the past.

Remember the last bear market? Retail investors rushed to cut their losses, while institutions were lurking. This time, it’s different—Cantor Fitzgerald explicitly pointed out that the market landscape has been reshaped by institutional players, and retail investors' FOMO sentiment is weakening the influence on price. This sounds like good news, but beware of a trap: institutional entry does not mean the market is safe.

I have seen too many projects where development progress stalls, yet tokens are hyped up—"the gap between price and underlying real progress widening" is a key signal mentioned in the information. Fields like DeFi and asset tokenization look lively, but how many are truly landing products, and how many are just fundraising stories?

Predicting a $75,000 cost basis may or may not be validated. But more important than the price is learning to identify whether a project is genuinely a long-term asset that institutions truly believe in, or just another liquidity game. With more institutional participants, the methods of profit-taking become more covert. Surviving longer in this cycle isn’t about betting on when the winter ends, but about maintaining a risk prevention bottom line amid the game between institutions and retail investors.