I'm a bit worried about the recent heated discussions regarding insurance funds entering the market. Social media platforms are filled with claims like "Institutional funds are coming, it's going to take off," and many people are following suit by shouting "Full position buy-in." But having been in this market for 8 years, I have to be honest: large capital inflows are never a free lunch; they are a redistribution of interests.

The logic of insurance funds is completely opposite to that of retail investors. Retail investors pursue high risk and high returns, while institutional funds seek stable and controllable yields. When these two approaches collide, conflicts are inevitable—and we often end up paying the price. Don’t think I’m just alarmist; every one of these details is worth remembering.

Let's start with the first trap: "Good news is often followed by bad news." This phrase is especially applicable here. Imagine this scenario—once the news breaks, how could those who have been lurking as "smart money" be foolish enough to wait for insurance funds to build positions? They’ve already been eyeing this window, using the hype of good news to quickly push up prices, then quietly offloading at the high point. When insurance funds actually start to deploy, what you might see are a bunch of chips being smashed down. This routine has played out countless times in the crypto market, and this time is unlikely to be an exception.

Another detail: the entry of insurance funds usually signals a move toward market normalization, which directly suppresses volatility and expected returns. For players accustomed to several times or even ten times the gains, this could actually be a negative. As the market stabilizes, opportunities for quick profits naturally diminish.