Preço de TokenFiTOKEN

Babylon is one of the most important launches to look forward to—great token ticker and good tokenomics. The 0-1 journey will end at TGE, and they will enter the 1-10 journey, where the TAM for the whole market is so huge that if they can really deliver on those promises, they

Problem statement: How do we save our tokens from becoming a graveyard laid down by people who supported us early? Solution: By figuring out a way where you could use the token as a bridge between your demand and supply sides—where you incentivize the process, not the speculation. Study what NodeOps has done with their tokenomics—a great example to be followed by others. 👇

summary of Pi Network's token unlock situation: Ongoing Unlocks: Pi Network is currently experiencing a period of ongoing token unlocks, which is contributing to increased circulating supply. These unlocks are having a noticeable impact on the token's price. Key Figures: Reports indicate significant numbers of Pi tokens are being released monthly. For example reports show that over 126.6 million PI tokens are set to be unlocked in the month of April.   There are also reports that over the next 12 months, over 1.5 billion pi tokens are scheduled to be released.   It is also shown that the network has been unlocking an average of 133 million tokens per month. Impact: The increase in circulating supply from these unlocks is putting downward pressure on the Pi token's price.   It is important to understand that token unlocks can heavily impact a crypto currency's market. disclaimer : don't agree with me do your investment at your own research and risk.

An expert from Oak Security has explained what went wrong with the JELLY token exploit, which cost the Hyperliquid exchange $10.63 million. Reactions are still mounting from an exploit that cost Hyperliquid (HYPE) exchange’s users $10.63 million in losses. The reactions seem to have one thing in common, which is calling out Hyperliquid for its practices. Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, managing director at Oak Security, shared his analysis with crypto.news. According to Fritsche, the exploit wasn’t caused by a bug, but rather was a predictable failure, one that could pose a risk to other DeFi protocols as well. The JELLY exploit appears to be the result of a coordinated market manipulation by several users. Specifically, one trader opened a $5 million short position on JELLY, only to remove their margin. Hyperliquid was left holding the position, after which other traders coordinated a short squeeze. “The attacker opened massive opposing positions in JELLY, knowing that one side would collapse and the other would cash out. Because payouts weren’t capped and risk wasn’t isolated, the protocol ate the loss—and the attacker walked away with millions,“ Dr. Jan Philipp Fritsche, Oak Security Fritsche described the exploit as a “textbook example of unpriced vega risk”, a concept from traditional finance that refers to the implied volatility of an asset. He emphasized that many DeFi protocols still fail to account for this crucial risk metric. This isn’t the first time industry figures have criticized Hyperliquid over the Jelly incident. Following the exploit, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen called the exchange’s practices “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” warning that it could become FTX 2.0 . Although Hyperliquid has pledged to compensate users affected by the exploit, the damage to its reputation may already be done. More importantly, the exploit has drawn attention to broader vulnerabilities in the decentralized finance sector. In 2024, DeFi exploits cost users $308.7 million in losses. That was more than rug pulls, which accounted for $192.9 million . Just days after the Jelly exploit, a DeFi protocol SIR.trading fell victim to another exploit, losing all of its total value locked of $355,000 .

South Korean authorities detailed two fraudulent trading tactics used in the price manipulation of the Fusionist (ACE) token, which resulted in investor losses totaling 7.1 billion won ($4.85 million). Findings from a trial in Seoul specify how traders used artificial strategies to deceive the market. The first method involved artificially inflating trading volume. Manipulators strategically placed buy limit orders above the market price while simultaneously setting sell limit orders below it. This created a false impression of high demand, leading traders to believe the token was experiencing organic growth. Reports indicate smart contracts automatically executed these orders, maintaining constant activity and masking the lack of genuine market interest. The second method involved creating fake buy pressure via spoofing. Manipulators placed buy orders at five price levels above the last traded price, designed to mimic real investor demand, only to automatically cancel them within three seconds. Repeating this process continuously misled traders about sustained interest, artificially driving up the price. Related: Binance Unveils 40th Launchpool, Supporting Fusionist (ACE) Token On April 3, prosecutors reportedly exposed how defendants manipulated ACE token prices using “hit” orders (loss-making trades to inflate volume) and spoofing (repeatedly placing and canceling fake buy orders). These tactics caused a 15-fold surge in daily ACE volume on Bithumb, with “hit” orders accounting for nearly 89% of the activity. Prosecutors noted the defendants also placed legitimate sell orders to liquidate coins entrusted to them, though these were not part of the manipulation charges. Authorities believe these manipulative strategies significantly contributed to investor losses, highlighting concerns over unregulated trading practices. The ongoing trial in Seoul will determine the legal consequences for those involved. Related: Coinbase CEO Sounds Alarm on Memecoin Market Scams Regulators worldwide may view this case as a precedent for stricter crackdowns on fraudulent market manipulation tactics within the crypto industry. Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.