熊市妖币自查手册

Editor: @tradinghoex @0xBenniee

Translation: @0xBenniee

For the vast majority entering crypto, the sole purpose of stepping into the world of cryptocurrency is that it remains one of the few places where ordinary people can still truly control their financial destiny. Most come here for "life-changing trades" and profits, not out of a pure passion for the underlying technology.

But the problem is: the rules of this game are set up so there can only be one winner—the Market Makers.

This article will thoroughly deconstruct how this manipulation works, what tools you need to identify it in advance, and how to avoid becoming the "exit liquidity." All conclusions are based on real cases of multiple manipulated tokens over the past 7 months.

Two Scripts, One Outcome

Not all "criminal pumps" follow the same playbook. After studying 7 manipulated tokens over 7 months, we discovered two distinct patterns. Both rely on low-float tokens on Binance, and both end with retail/exchanges taking losses, but the underlying mechanism for extracting funds is fundamentally different.

MYX: The Squeeze

Phase 1 — Set Up

According to CoinMarketCap historical data, the "big move" for MYX that eventually hit a high of $19 started in late August 2025. It broke from below $0.10 to around $1.20, then continued rising to the several-dollar range in the following weeks.

A deep analysis of this rally reveals it was orchestrated by 6 wallets: they executed 2,240 small buys on PancakeSwap, accumulating a total of $3.92 million worth of MYX tokens, which were then consolidated into a centralized exchange deposit address.

Research on Arkham also found that during August-September 2025, multiple wallets systematically injected USDT into the MYX liquidity pool using a "rotation pattern":

• One wallet injected funds in batches of $9–10.8k;
• Another wallet in batches of $2–6.7k;
• A third wallet executed dozens of nearly identical injections of $19,938 each.

These wallets made multiple small buys on-chain and split the holdings, gaining early control of circulating supply off-exchange before the pump while avoiding risk controls set for whale monitoring. Through this covert accumulation phase, the market makers, unbeknownst to others, gained control of the supply, laying the foundation for subsequent manipulation.

Phase 2 — Luring Shorts

CoinGecko historical data shows MYX traded in the $0.10–0.11 range from late July to early August 2025:

• August 3: jumped to $0.168;
• August 4: surged to $0.398;
• August 5: reached $1.29 — a 1,190% increase in 5 days.

The unlocking of 39 million tokens happened exactly on August 6, when the price was $1.65, right in the middle of this initial pump.

This pump was deliberately made to look "unsustainable." Any cautious trader looking at the fundamentals, seeing a micro-cap token with no users pump 1,550%, would think the same thing: "Shorting this is a sure bet."

Over the next month (Aug 6 – Sep 6), MYX consolidated between $1.05–2.00, briefly touching $2.00 on August 16 before falling back to $1.31 on September 6. This month-long sideways movement looked exactly like a top forming. More shorts entered.

As of April 2026, only 28.18% of MYX's total supply had been unlocked, with 71.82% still locked or in linear release. During the August-September 2025 pump, the circulating supply was even lower, and the project team typically controlled 95% or more of the supply.

There is a common misconception here: Market Cap & Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV)

Market cap = Current price x Circulating supply

FDV = price x max supply

Generally, the initial circulation of heavily manipulated tokens is around 10-20%. The actual cost of control is based on market cap, not FDV. This can lead some traders, fearing a high FDV, to short the token, even though the real circulating supply is only reflected by the market cap and actual off-exchange supply.

Phase 3 — The Trap

During that month of consolidation, funding rates went deeply negative — shorts were paying -2% every 4 hours, meaning holding the position for just one day cost -12%, not even accounting for sideways or upward price action.

The manipulator used this phase to close their initial long positions and reopen new ones. The $1–2 price range coupled with deeply negative funding rates made it look like a "token that had already topped." More shorts entered, convinced a "dump was imminent."

Phase 4 — The Squeeze

Coinglass data confirms this setup:

• September 6: OI of $95.15M, price at $1.31;
• September 7: Price nearly tripled to $3.39, triggering the first wave of short liquidations. OI surged as new positions were opened on both sides;
• September 8: MYX skyrocketed from $3.39 to $14.09 in a single day. According to WEEX exchange analysis, $16.53M was liquidated that day, with $13.68M coming from shorts. Each liquidation forced a buy-back, pushing the price higher and triggering the next round of liquidations. OI soared to over $370M;

• September 9: Pushed to $14.6;
• September 10: Hit $16.75. Coinglass shows daily contract volume spiked to $9–10B+ during this period.

The squeeze continued until mid-September, with the price grinding between $10–17, systematically hunting down the remaining shorts.

Phase 5 — The Exit

Once the shorts were wiped out and the price peaked, the manipulator switched positions: opened shorts at the high, slowly closed their remaining long positions, and began transferring tokens to centralized exchanges for spot selling, though not selling immediately.

This formed the second trap, catching even some experienced on-chain analysts off guard. Seeing "wallet → exchange" transfers, they instinctually shorted, thinking "a dump is coming." However, those transfers were just bait. Before the actual dump, the manipulator squeezed this new wave of shorts one more time, making a final round of profits, before truly exiting.

COAI: The Pump and Dump

COAI launched in September 2025 at an opening price of $0.22. It dropped to $0.17 within two days due to airdrop recipients selling. Over the next 7 days, it traded quietly between $0.17–0.39 — this was the accumulation window.

On October 6, COAI launched 5x leveraged perpetuals on Aster Exchange. The same day, the price pumped from $0.39 to $2.42. Binance Alpha was the first platform to list COAI (September 25, same day as TGE), with Bybit following around October 30. The entire BNB ecosystem was in an upward trend at the time, and the "BNB Season" narrative provided perfect cover for the pump.

As of April 2026, only 24.86% of COAI's total supply was unlocked, with 75.14% still in linear release. This means during the October 2025 pump, the real circulating supply was even lower, and on-exchange control was even tighter.

Bubblemaps' on-chain analysis revealed 60 wallets: they were funded simultaneously, each receiving exactly 1 BNB from Binance at 11:00 UTC on March 25, and then executing identical automated trading strategies through Binance Alpha. This highly uniform behavior led Bubblemaps to directly state that there was centralized manipulation or high coordination behind these addresses.

Bubble maps:https://x.com/bubblemaps/status/1978865917552660795

After that, the price action accelerated. Coinglass data shows:

• Before Aster listing: OI ~$30.2M;
• October 7: OI surged to $207.6M, price at $2.99;
• October 9: OI $350.93M, price at $5.82;
• October 12: Intraday ATH around $44–45.

Data from coinglass

Coinglass:https://www.coinglass.com/currencies/COAI

After the ATH, OI on Coinglass showed a series of rapid declines.

Key Differences from MYX

COAI did not follow MYX's five-phase script. MYX had a clear, month-long consolidation period between the initial pump and the squeeze — a deliberate "bait + trap" cycle: market makers waited for shorts to enter, let funding rates go deeply negative, then triggered a cascade of liquidations.

COAI was different. From launch to ATH, it was almost continuous, with no pause in between. With over 75% of the supply locked at TGE, the tradable circulation was razor-thin from the start. A heavily controlled token doesn't need to construct a complex squeeze; it can simply dominate the price on this tiny float and harvest the remaining exchange liquidity through off-exchange leverage.

Common Characteristics of These Tokens

1. Low Float

• COAI unlocked 19.65% at TGE;
• MYX unlocked 9.21%.
• Initial circulation was low, low float + high control

2. BNB Chain All tokens involved had contracts on BNB Chain, including AIA (promoted as the "largest AI agent infrastructure," deployed simultaneously on SUI/BSC/BTC at launch). BNB Chain offers cheaper fees and a direct path to Binance Alpha.

Some tokens were deployed on multiple chains:

• AIA: SUI, BNB Chain;
• Rave: Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain;
• River: Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain.

Multi-chain deployment gives manipulators more avenues to exploit: they can move tokens to the thinnest liquidity chain, create arbitrage opportunities through price differences, exploit cross-chain bridge mechanisms for manipulation (e.g., Power's operation using the Ronin bridge pause), and distribute tokens across multiple liquidity pools during the distribution phase. More chains mean more places to manipulate.

3. Binance Alpha → Binance Futures BNB Chain listing → Binance Alpha → Binance Futures. Futures listing is the most critical step — it provides the venue for leveraged liquidations, and the futures market is the primary profit center.

4. AI Narrative (Mostly)

Most tokens covered in this article were packaged as AI projects — AI agents, AI infrastructure. MYX is a perpetual protocol, and PIPPIN is the only exception (a pure meme coin with no AI wrapper). But as long as the AI label exists, every pump has a story to tell.

Retail is far more willing to enter a token with an AI narrative than a random BNB Chain token with no story.

5. Coordinated Wallet Accumulation

• COAI: 60 wallets, each with 1 BNB;
• PIPPIN: 50 wallets funded from HTX, controlling 44% of supply;
• MYX: 6 wallets, 2,240 small buys on PancakeSwap;
• SIREN: 200 wallets, controlling 50% of total supply.

These operations are typically spread out over weeks or months.

How Manipulation Works at the Order Book Level

OI Brushing

"Brushing OI" refers to market makers inflating the Open Interest figure artificially through wash trading or using coordinated accounts to open and close positions on illiquid exchanges, without actually creating real market risk exposure. This inflated OI makes the token appear more active than it is, attracting more retail traders and creating the illusion of "ample liquidity."

MYX is a clear example. Coinglass shows that during the September squeeze, daily contract volume spiked to $9–11B, while OI fluctuated between $95–396M, giving a Vol/OI ratio of 24x. For normal tokens, this ratio is between 3–8x. Anything above 20x strongly suggests a significant portion of the volume is fabricated.

According to WEEX's analysis, two-thirds of MYX's total volume was concentrated on Bitget — a single exchange accounting for the majority of activity in a micro-cap token. This concentration itself is another signal of wash trading: when a token listed on multiple exchanges has most of its volume on one platform, that exchange's volume is likely being artificially inflated to attract attention and influence listing decisions on other exchanges.