$SIREN, this token that went online on Binance Alpha and with contracts during the "broccoli" era while guessing CZ's dog's name, has almost been forgotten.

However, just two days ago, when it was widely discussed for its "surge," the total liquidated amount of this coin ranked fourth after Bitcoin, ETH, and XAU, with about 23.25 million US dollars. If it weren't for Trump raising the fluctuations of gold again with TACO, SIREN would have been third.

The price of this coin once approached 5 US dollars, corresponding to a market value of about 3.675 billion US dollars, briefly squeezing into the top 30 of the total cryptocurrency market value, surpassing established tokens like OKB and UNI.

In this sluggish market, this is not the first time we have seen such a phenomenon. $PIPPIN, $RIVER, $BEAT, $MYX... By sorting through questions related to $SIREN, what kind of lessons can we learn from these similar situations?

Is there a trace of the "leverage scam"?

As early as March 5, @c_ckoko tweeted, stating, "$SIREN is obviously under absolute control, this is a method of harvesting users across the board."

His tweet explained well how this "leverage scam" operates: the depth difference of the spot on trading platforms can create significant volatility with a small amount of funds, and influence the price of Binance contracts for harvesting purposes.

Moreover, as he suggested at the end of the tweet, the $SIREN contract price index was adjusted. When he tweeted, the influence on the $SIREN Binance contract price index was composed of Gate spot 50%, Kucoin spot 12.5%, Binance contract 12.5%, and Binance Alpha 25%. After two adjustments, the current distribution of the contract price index is Gate spot 25%, Kucoin spot 12.5%, Binance contract 12.5%, and Binance Alpha 50%.

According to Arkham data, the inventory of $SIREN on Gate was merely 64,000 on March 22.

In this context, a trading volume of 100,000 US dollars can create a minute bar with a nearly 40% volatility.

From the perspective of open interest, $SIREN showed a clear anomaly starting from February 8, as the previously stable open interest of 3 to 5 million dollars suddenly surged to 58.83 million dollars.

Of course, abnormal signs do not necessarily lead to any specific inevitable result. After all, the chips are in the hands of the controlling dealer, and we cannot determine how the dealer will harvest.

Method

First is to control chips, stockpiling a large amount of spot chips and opening large long positions to push the price higher.

On-chain analyst Ember (@EmberCN) gathered data on the control of $SIREN and found that the portion controlled by the dealer is as high as 88.5%. If we include the amount deposited by the dealer in centralized exchanges, this number would be even higher.

The above tweet also pointed out that DWF Labs might be the controlling party in this event, but DWF Labs co-founder Zac denied such claims in the group chat.

After pushing up the price, the dealer short-sells, enticing retail investors to think the top of the stage is approaching.

From the above fee chart, we can see that starting from March 14, $SIREN frequently had high negative fees, with shorts continuously sending money to the dealer’s longs, and the dealer further pushed the price up using these "free" funds. In the early morning of March 23, Gate spot saw a severe fluctuation of 78% within 10 minutes, with a corresponding trading volume of only about 450,000 US dollars, and the price of $SIREN jumped from 2.75 US dollars to nearly 5 US dollars. This indicates that many people were liquidated.

At this point, $SIREN may not be over, as the dealer could flatten their long positions and sell their spot, creating a mad bearish candle, and then close the short positions at costs far below the entry price. By comparing the trends of $RIVER, $POWER, and $BEAT with that of $SIREN in the same chart, it appears that $SIREN still needs one final netting.

As this article is about to be published, the above speculation has been confirmed:

Conclusion

No matter whether the current market is depressed or not, the emergence of such harvesting schemes is always unfavorable. Indeed, some trading experts may manage to scoop a bowl of soup from the dealer amidst the information fog, but for the vast majority of retail investors, it is merely an unfair gamble.

When such blatant harvesting schemes appeared among the top 30 cryptocurrencies, I could only sigh.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。