ZKJ and KOGE were both manipulated to plummet, awakening a large number of retail investors who were chasing trading volume on the Binance Alpha platform. The original plan was to earn an airdrop "interest" by trading volume, but in the end, even the principal was lost. What's going on behind this? Who should pay for this disaster? I'm trying to go deep into the process: 1) Let's talk about what's going on first? Binance launches Alpha platform trading volume boosting airdrop activity. ZKJ and KOGE have been listed as popular projects on Alpha, and a large number of retail investors have started to crazily increase their volume in anticipation of airdrops. However, just as Alpha activities were booming and retail funds flooded in, a large player proposed about $3.6 million worth of tokens from OKX and directly smashed them in the market. ZKJ collapsed first, and due to the high correlation of the Koge pool, KOGE passively followed suit, causing retail investors to panic and sell when they saw the sharp decline, further accelerating the collapse cycle. In the end, those users who diligently used Binance Alpha for volume boosting and airdrops not only did not receive any returns, but also lost all their capital. 2) Who should pay for this' evil process'? The project team can say: We didn't let the big players smash the market, this is market behavior, but for TGE's large project with a valuation of 2B, the liquidity can be manipulated by individual big players, which is simply unbelievable; A big spender can say: I am free to handle my money, and I deserve to lose money, but when I make such a clever move, I know it will cause a chain collapse. What is the motive behind it; The Binance Alpha platform can also be said to only provide a trading platform, and users bear the risks themselves. However, without Binance's platform endorsement, how can users dare to invest huge amounts of money to participate? Now that something happens, how can we distance ourselves from the relationship; You see, all the stakeholders in this chain seem to have reasons to set aside their relationships, except for individual investors who look confused: Why did this hot Alpha Summer end before it even started? Where is my principal? 3) Where exactly did the problem lie? In my opinion, what appears to be an accidental market risk on the surface is actually a premeditated systematic harvest: The project team "designed" a correlation trap, large investors chose the "timing" of precise strikes, Binance provided a "legal" harvesting platform, and individual investors bore all losses. Specifically: Binance Alpha made strategic mistakes amidst competitive anxiety. Watching OKX conquer the Web3 DEX and wallet fields, and its share of on chain transactions being eroded, I am anxious. Alpha was originally designed quite well - to give the project team a testing period, users an observation period, and oneself a risk control period. But Binance clearly overestimated its risk control capabilities and underestimated the "malice" of market participants. In order to quickly regain market share, Alpha was transformed from an "observation platform" to a "main battlefield". To put it simply, Alpha is not meant to achieve better Binance, but to build a new "Binance" on the chain? What's even more alarming is that Binance overly idealized the market environment when designing the Alpha mechanism. The "three party win-win" model envisioned by Binance sounds very promising: the project team passes the Alpha testing market, users gain profits by brushing volume, and the platform earns transaction fees? This logic sounds great, but it is based on a fatal assumption - everyone will 'play according to the script'. What about reality? In this liquidity fragile small currency market, any artificially created hype is a false prosperity that can be easily shattered with just one poke. Binance seems to have forgotten that the Alpha platform not only provides convenience, but also creates a perfect "hunting ground" for malicious operators - after all, with Binance endorsement to increase credibility, incentive mechanisms to gather retail funds, and sufficient liquidity to harvest, we live together. With this combination of punches, Alpha - originally an observation area used for "risk isolation" - has forcefully generated a breeding ground for "precise harvesting" by the wealthy. At the end of the day, the entire incident exposed the structural flaws in the current market ecosystem, with each participant pursuing short-term profit maximization: project parties want to quickly withdraw liquidity for cash, large investors want precise arbitrage, trading platforms want to increase trading volume and revenue, and individual investors always want to grab excess returns. Everyone was playing their own small calculations, ultimately resulting in a "perfect" multi-party game defeat. But after all, this happened on the Binance platform, the world's largest exchange, which should have been the industry's "anchor", but ended up becoming the main stage of this harvesting drama. Binance's Alpha strategy this time is essentially using its own brand reputation as a guarantee for others' harvesting behavior. I want market share, trading volume, and fee income, but the result is that I hit myself in the foot by lifting a stone. Alas, it is regrettable that if the "top players" are all acting recklessly and no one is responsible for maintaining order, when will the industry truly mature? The answer may be even more distant than we imagine.