#数字资产市场动态 🚀 Review: The Cold Start Mode of a New Trading Platform and Why It Became the Fuse for Withdrawal Difficulties

I was initially optimistic about the platform's "internal exchange trading + pre-market contracts" approach—I thought it was a genuine attempt at a Web3 trading paradigm. But when withdrawal congestion persisted and at least 30 million USD worth of funds were fleeing on-chain, I realized: this centralized control logic hides risks far beyond expectations.

The most painful discovery was—what's called "withdrawal limit protections for liquidity"—is actually a false proposition. Once market expectations suggest the platform is about to issue tokens, a bank run is almost inevitable. The current withdrawal blockage proves that nearly 400 million USD worth of funds are still locked on-chain awaiting liquidity release. The core issue behind this is: the "control mode" of Web3 projects is essentially still a centralized approach. Once trust breaks down, the collapse often happens much faster than decentralized public chain projects.

A deeper hidden risk lies in pricing power. Looking at the historical trajectories of Hyperliquid and Aster, I once thought that controlling the pace slowly could resolve the issue. Now I see the real vulnerability of a certain platform: it has handed over its pricing power to external contracts, effectively giving the project’s initiative entirely to the market, while lacking sufficient contingency plans. This passive situation is enough to turn any minor detail into the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Therefore, whether this withdrawal crisis can be overcome may really depend on whether senior management can quickly regain the narrative power over pricing. 👇