#预测市场 After reading this analysis about the risks of market manipulation, my first reaction is: I am too familiar with this routine.

Changing names, changing tracks, the logic of manipulation has never changed. In 2004, German parties collectively betting on election markets; in 2012, Romney’s mysterious large orders; in 2024, French investors heavily pumping on Polymarket—basically, using funds to pile up false signals, misleading uninformed people to follow and buy in. These tactics have been seen countless times on-chain, just with tokens, DAOs, and oracles replacing traditional instruments.

The most heartbreaking point is that the power of market manipulation lies not in what it can change, but in its ability to destroy trust. Even if it’s ultimately proven that the manipulation had no impact on the votes, once the suspicion of being manipulated is planted, the entire system’s credibility collapses. That’s the real destructive force—more deadly than directly changing the outcome.

The article highlights a key issue: low-liquidity markets are hotbeds for manipulation, while high-liquidity markets can self-correct. This is very important for us when choosing projects on-chain. Small tokens and trading pairs with only a few thousand dollars in daily volume can be easily dumped by a big holder, or pumped by rumors—because liquidity is dead. Conversely, truly valuable projects must have a sufficiently active trading ecosystem—that’s a natural anti-manipulation mechanism.

The final advice for policymakers is worth pondering: disclosure rules and transparency in regulation are the baseline. We lack this layer of protection on-chain, so we must be more vigilant—watching for trading concentration, account relationships, and the timing patterns of large orders. These are signals for identifying manipulation. In any market, the key to longevity is learning to see through these routines.