Many people study the cryptocurrency market by first looking for a list of institutions and then copying the answers from that list. It seems that as long as they know 'who bought', it automatically equates to knowing 'why it rose'.

They do not consider the timing, the cost structure, the way of participation, or whether the institutions invested at the primary level, created a market, or had already hedged their risks through derivatives. In their eyes, institutions only have one action: buy.

This is the simplest and also the most dangerous way to understand. Institution entry has never been a one-time transaction; it is a complete set of game structures: building positions, locking positions, exiting, hedging, and redistributing. What you see are the names in the announcements; what they have completed is a stage that has long since ended.

Ironically, many coins regarded as 'heavily invested by institutions' have had their risks thoroughly transferred away by institutions through locking, rebates, and repurchase terms, leaving only emotions and liquidity exposed in the market.

Thus, an absurd scene has emerged in the market: retail investors are studying what institutions 'have bought now', while institutions are studying retail investors 'when they will take over'.

Simplifying investment to 'buying coins with institutions' essentially means refusing to understand this market. Because institutions buy structures, probabilities, and exit paths, not the fantasies represented by the candlestick on the chart.

When you only focus on the list of institutions but do not look at the code, the progress, the product, or the real use, you are not learning about capital,

you are providing liquidity to capital.

The harsh reality is: institutions do not need you to understand them; they only need you to believe in them. #币圈现状