Macroeconomic Analysis and Market Outlook of TACO Trading After the 1011 Crash

Summary

The crypto industry crash on October 11, 2025, referred to in the industry as the '1011 Incident', saw a liquidation amount exceeding $19 billion in a single day, over 10 times the previous historical peak. Bitcoin plummeted from $117,000 to below $102,000 at one point, marking the largest single-day decline in nearly three years. This event was distinct from the 2020 '312' pandemic liquidity crisis and the 2021 '519' regulatory tightening liquidation, as its trigger stemmed from Trump's announcement of a 100% tariff on China, a macro-political surprise, while the actual destructive power came from the leverage fragility within the crypto market itself. The market's hot topic, the 'TACO trade' (Trump Anticipated China Outcome trade), essentially involved pre-pricing and speculative operations based on Trump's policy signals. The market widely believes that Trump is adept at creating price volatility through extreme rhetoric and policy surprises, thereby indirectly manipulating market expectations. The incident not only severely impacted the Meme sector and shook the market confidence of Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies but also subjected Perp DEX to the largest on-chain liquidation test in history, highlighting how deeply embedded the crypto market is within the global financial and geopolitical landscape. 1011 may become the 'Lehman Moment' for the crypto industry, and its aftershocks and confidence recovery could take weeks or even months to digest. Looking ahead to the fourth quarter of 2025, the market is likely to enter a 'risk repricing' and 'de-leveraging' phase, with overall volatility remaining high. BTC and ETH may seek to establish a bottom at key support levels, while high-risk assets like Meme are unlikely to regain vitality in the short term, and DAT companies and related U.S. stock targets may continue to face pressure. Relatively speaking, stablecoin liquidity, DeFi blue chips on mainstream chains, and staking derivative assets with robust cash flow may become temporary safe havens for funds. The core variables of the fourth-quarter market still lie in the direction of macro policy and regulatory signals; if the U.S. dollar liquidity environment does not significantly improve, the market may continue to experience oscillating bottom-seeking patterns.

1. Background and Analysis of the Event

The market turmoil on October 11, 2025, has been dubbed the “1011 Incident” by industry insiders. This extreme market situation, which saw over $19 billion in liquidations in a single day and Bitcoin plummeting by $15,000 at one point, is not an isolated event but rather a result of the interplay of macro politics, structural market vulnerabilities, and localized triggering mechanisms. Its complexity and destructive power inevitably bring to mind the Lehman moment of the 2008 global financial crisis. Below, we will analyze the deeper logic of this crisis from several aspects: macro background, market vulnerability, triggering mechanisms, transmission chains, and clearing mechanisms. Global Macro: Trump's Tariff Policy and China-U.S. Trade Conflict. In the second half of 2025, the global economy was already under high pressure. After several rounds of interest rate hikes and an expansion of deficits, the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy was under serious scrutiny, with the dollar index remaining high and global liquidity tightening. Against this backdrop, late at night on October 10 (Eastern Time), Trump suddenly announced a 100% tariff on all imported goods from China, not only far exceeding market expectations but also escalating the China-U.S. trade conflict from “structural friction” to “comprehensive economic confrontation.” This policy instantly shattered the market's fantasy of “China-U.S. détente.” The Asia-Pacific stock markets were the first to feel the pressure, with U.S. stock futures plunging before the market opened. More importantly, the pricing logic of global risk assets was completely disrupted. For crypto assets, which are highly dependent on dollar liquidity and risk appetite, this was undoubtedly a systemic shock. It can be said that the macro level provided the external shock of a “black swan,” becoming the initial trigger of the 1011 Incident. Additionally, market vulnerability: tight liquidity, excessive leverage, emotional overextension. However, whether any external shock can evolve into a crisis also depends on the market's own vulnerabilities.

The cryptocurrency market in 2025 is at a delicate stage: first, there is tight liquidity, with the Federal Reserve's balance sheet reduction and a high interest rate environment leading to a scarcity of dollar funds. The issuance of stablecoins has slowed down, arbitrage channels inside and outside the market are not smooth, and the depth of on-chain liquidity pools has noticeably decreased. Secondly, there is excessive leverage; against the backdrop of BTC breaking the $100,000 mark and ETH returning to a trillion-dollar market cap, market sentiment is extremely exuberant, with perpetual contract positions repeatedly hitting new highs, and the overall leverage ratio surpassing the peak of the 2021 bull market. Additionally, there is sentiment exhaustion, with the explosive growth of the meme sector and a frenzy of funds driving a large number of retail and institutional investors to increase their positions, but behind it lies a singular expectation of “continuing bull market.” Once the trend reverses, the destructive power is immense. Therefore, the market has long been a “house of cards built on high leverage,” which can collapse instantly with just a spark. The triggering mechanism: USDe, wBETH, BNSOL de-pegging. What truly ignites the crisis is the simultaneous de-pegging of three key assets: USDe (a new type of over-collateralized stablecoin) briefly fell below $0.93 due to insufficient liquidation of certain reserve assets, triggering a chain panic; wBETH (a liquidity derivative of staked Ethereum) saw its discount widen to 7% due to lack of liquidity and liquidation pressure; BNSOL became de-pegged under the withdrawal of funds from cross-chain bridges, with a nearly 10% discount. These three are heavily used as collateral and trading pairs in the market. When their prices quickly deviate from fair value, the liquidation engine misjudges the risk, and the value of collateral plummets, further amplifying the chain reaction of liquidation. In other words, the failure of these “core liquidity assets” becomes the fuse that ignites the market's self-destruction. The market crash transmission chain: from de-pegging to liquidation. The logic of event transmission can be summarized as: de-pegging impacts collateral → insufficient margin triggers liquidation → CEX/DEX compete to liquidate and sell → price avalanche → more collateral de-pegging, forming positive feedback, especially under the “unified account margin model,” where user asset pools share collateral, the plummet of USDe, wBETH, and other collateral directly drags down the overall account health, leading to large-scale nonlinear liquidation. This flaw becomes the most fatal structural risk point in 1011. Differences in liquidation mechanisms between CEX and DEX. Centralized exchanges (CEX): Often use automatic reduction (ADL) and forced liquidation mechanisms; once margins are insufficient, the system enforces liquidation. This often exacerbates “liquidation cascades” during high volatility. Exchanges like Binance and OKX, due to high user concentration, have extremely large liquidation scales. Decentralized exchanges (DEX): Contracts are liquidated through smart contracts, which are transparent on-chain, but due to limited on-chain settlement speed, price slippage and gas congestion restrict liquidation efficiency, leading to some positions being “unable to be liquidated immediately,” further distorting prices. In 1011, the combination of CEX and DEX liquidation mechanisms has created a “double liquidation effect.” Collateral risk: the fatal flaw of the unified account margin model. The “unified account margin model” (Cross-Margin with Shared Collateral) popular in the cryptocurrency market in recent years aims to improve capital efficiency by allowing different assets to share margin. However, in extreme cases, this model amplifies risks: USDe and wBETH discount → total account equity shrinks; margin rate worsens → triggering a chain of forced liquidations; forced liquidation pressure → further dragging down collateral prices. This positive feedback loop allows small-scale collateral de-pegging to quickly evolve into systemic liquidation.

The 1011 incident is not a single black swan event, but rather the result of a combination of macro assaults, leverage vulnerabilities, collateral failure, and liquidation defects. Trump's tariff policy serves as the fuse, while excessive market leverage and the unified account model are the detonators. The decoupling of USDe, wBETH, and BNSOL is the direct trigger, and the CEX/DEX liquidation mechanism acts as an amplifier that accelerates the collapse. This crisis reveals a brutal reality: the crypto market has evolved from an “independent risk asset pool” into a complex system highly coupled with global macro and geopolitical factors. In this context, any external shock could trigger a chain reaction through leverage and collateral structures, ultimately evolving into a liquidity collapse akin to a “Lehman moment.”

2. Historical Comparison and Analysis

On March 12, 2020, the global capital markets experienced historic panic against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and plummeting oil prices, entering the “Crypto Lehman Moment” of the COVID liquidity crisis. The U.S. stock market triggered circuit breakers, dollar liquidity became extremely tight, and the demand for safe-haven assets led to a sell-off of all high-risk assets. Bitcoin plunged from about $8,000 to less than $4,000 in a single day, a drop of over 50%, prompting widespread descriptions of the “Crypto Lehman Moment.” The essence of 312 was the transmission of macro liquidity shocks to the crypto market: the dollar shortage forced investors to sell off all non-core assets, and the difficulty of exchanging stablecoins surged; at that time, the market infrastructure was weak, DeFi was still small, and clearing was mainly concentrated in centralized exchanges like BitMEX. Leveraged funds were forced to liquidate, and on-chain collateral assets were also subject to runs, but the overall market was still at an early scale; although the crisis was severe, it was more of a singular external macro shock + leveraged liquidation amplification. Entering 2021, Bitcoin broke through $60,000, and market sentiment became euphoric. In May, the Chinese government continuously issued policies to regulate mining and crack down on trading, compounded by the U.S. SEC's compliance review of trading platforms, leading to significant regulatory pressure on the crypto market. In the context of excessive leverage and over-optimism, over $500 billion in market value evaporated in a single day, and Bitcoin once fell to around $30,000. The characteristic of 519 was the combination of policy and internal market vulnerabilities. On one hand, as a major mining and trading country, China's regulation directly weakened BTC network hash power and market confidence; on the other hand, the high positions in perpetual contracts led to a rapid transmission of the liquidation chain. Compared to 312, the trigger point of 519 leaned more towards the combination of policy and structural risks, showing that the crypto market, in the process of mainstreaming, could no longer avoid regulatory and policy variables. On October 11, 2025, the “1011 Bloodbath,” characterized by macro + leverage + collateral dislocation, saw over $19 billion in liquidations in a single day, with Bitcoin dropping from $117,000 to $101,800. Compared to 312 and 519, the complexity and systemic characteristics of 1011 were more pronounced. Firstly, at the macro level: Trump's imposition of 100% tariffs on China directly escalated geopolitical friction into economic confrontation, putting pressure on the dollar and risk assets across the board. The shock was similar to 312, but the backdrop was no longer a pandemic black swan, but a predictable conflict under political and economic games. Secondly, market vulnerability: leverage was again at historical peaks, BTC and ETH hovered at high levels, and the Meme frenzy brought excessive optimism, but liquidity was noticeably insufficient due to the Federal Reserve's balance sheet reduction and the slowdown in stablecoin expansion. This was similar to the environment of 519—optimistic sentiment and fragile structures overlapped, but to a deeper degree. Thirdly, the triggering mechanism: the simultaneous dislocation of three core collateral assets—USDe, wBETH, and BNSOL—was the unique “internal ignition point” of 1011. As the basis of collateral assets and trading pairs, once their prices deviated from fair value, the entire margin system would collapse. This was a situation not seen in 312 and 519, marking that collateral risk had become a new systemic weakness.

Similarities of the Three Crises: All three reflect the fatal logic of the crypto market's “high leverage - weak liquidity - liquidation chain.”

External shocks serve as the fuse (312 pandemic, 519 regulation, 1011 tariffs), while internal leverage and insufficient liquidity act as amplifiers; daily fluctuations exceeding 40% are accompanied by massive liquidations and a severe blow to market confidence. The difference lies in the fact that 312 is a singular macro shock, with a relatively small market and limited on-chain impact; 519 reflects the resonance of regulation and leverage, showcasing the direct shaping of the market by policy variables; 1011 combines macro factors, leverage, and the decoupling of collateral, transmitting the crisis from external influences to core internal assets, illustrating the complexity following system evolution. In other words, the chain of crises is continuously extending: from “macro single point” → “policy overlay” → “internal core asset self-collapse.” Through three historic collapses, we can observe the evolutionary path of risks in the crypto market: from peripheral assets to system coupling: the 312 incident in 2020 was more of an external shock, while the 1011 incident in 2025 is highly bound to global macro and geopolitical factors, indicating that the crypto market is no longer an “independent risk pool.” From single leverage to collateral chains: early crises primarily stemmed from excessive contract leverage, whereas today it has evolved into stability issues of the collateral assets themselves, with the decoupling of USDe, wBETH, and BNSOL being typical cases. From external amplification to internal self-destruction: 312 primarily relied on macro sell-offs for transmission, 519 combined regulation and leverage, while 1011 shows that the market has now formed a self-destructive chain internally. The gap in infrastructure and institutional constraints: the unified account margin model amplifies risks during extreme market conditions, and the overlap of CEX/DEX liquidations accelerates the panic, indicating that the current market institutional design remains focused on “efficiency first,” with a serious lack of risk buffer mechanisms. The three crises of 312, 519, and 1011 witnessed the evolution of the crypto market from “peripheral assets” to “system coupling” in just five years. 312 revealed the lethality of macro liquidity shocks, 519 exposed the double-edged sword of policy and leverage, while 1011 presented the comprehensive outbreak of collateral failure and structural risks for the first time. In the future, systemic risks in the crypto market will become more complex: on one hand, it heavily relies on dollar liquidity and geopolitical patterns, becoming a “highly sensitive node” in the global financial system; on the other hand, high internal leverage, cross-asset collateral, and a unified margin model lead to accelerated collapse features during crises. For regulators, the crypto market is no longer a “shadow asset pool” but a potential source of systemic risk. For investors, each collapse is a milestone in the iterative understanding of risk. The significance of the 1011 event lies in the fact that the crypto market's Lehman moment is no longer just a metaphor but may become a reality.

3. Impact Analysis of the Track:1011Repricing of the Crypto Market After the Event

Meme Track: From Frenzy to Retreat, the Value Disillusionment After FOMO. The Meme sector was undoubtedly the brightest track in the first half of 2025. The established effects of Dogecoin and Shiba Inu, combined with the emergence of new Chinese memes and other hot topics, made Meme a gathering place for young users and retail funds. Driven by FOMO sentiment, the daily trading volume of individual coins broke through billions of dollars, becoming a major source of trading volume for both CEX and DEX. However, after the 1011 incident, the structural weaknesses of Meme coins were exposed: Concentrated Liquidity: Over-reliance on leading exchanges and a single liquidity pool, which greatly increases price slippage in times of market panic. Lack of Underlying Value: The valuation of Meme coins relies more on social narratives and short-term traffic, unable to withstand systematic liquidity squeezes. The funding effect is fleeting: retail investors retreat, institutions cash out, leading to a “value disillusionment” in the short term. It can be said that the “traffic-price-funds” closed loop of the Meme sector cannot be maintained under macro shocks. Unlike traditional assets, the fragility of Meme stems from the lack of verifiable cash flows or collateral logic, making it one of the tracks that experienced the largest declines during the crash. Meme is not only a speculative asset but also a “social expression” for the younger generation of investors. Its explosion reflects group psychology, identity recognition, and internet subculture. However, in the current environment of highly concentrated financialization, the lifecycle of Meme is shorter, and the funding effect is more likely to backfire. After 1011, the short-term narrative of Meme has basically collapsed, and the future may return to a niche survival pattern of “long-tail cultural coins” and “branded memes.”

DAT Track: Repricing of Digital Asset Treasury. Three representative cases: MicroStrategy (MSTR): Continuously increasing Bitcoin holdings through bond issuance, representing the “single currency treasury model”; Forward: Focuses on Solana treasury asset management, emphasizing ecological binding; Helius: Switches from a medical narrative to the “Solana treasury platform,” relying on staking income and ecological collaboration for cash flow. The core of the DAT model is: holding cryptocurrency assets as “quasi-reserves” and obtaining cash flow through staking, re-staking, and DeFi strategies. In a bull market, this model can achieve NAV premiums, similar to “crypto version closed-end funds.” After the 1011 incident, the market's pricing logic for DAT companies quickly contracted: asset side shrinkage: prices of BTC/ETH and others plummeted, directly lowering the net asset value (NAV) of DATs. The immediate impacts are: 1. Disappearance of premiums: The previously market-given mNAV premium (Market Cap / NAV) stemmed from expectations of expansion and cash flow, but after the crisis, the premium quickly returned, with some small DATs even trading at a discount. 2. Liquidity differentiation: Large companies like MSTR have financing capabilities and brand premiums, while small DATs lack liquidity and experience significant stock price fluctuations. 3. Large companies vs. small companies: liquidity differences. Large companies (like MSTR): can still expand their treasury through secondary market issuances and bond financing, strong risk resistance; small companies (like Forward, Helius): funding sources rely on token issuance and re-staking income, lacking financing tools, and once faced with systemic shocks, cash flow and confidence are both severely hit. The sustainability of the model and the ETF substitution effect. The long-term competitive pressure on DAT comes from ETFs and traditional asset management tools. As BTC and ETH spot ETFs gradually mature, investors can obtain exposure to crypto assets through low-fee, compliant channels, compressing the premium space of DAT. Its future value lies more in: whether it can build excess returns through DeFi/re-staking; whether it can establish ecological synergy (e.g., binding to a public chain); and whether it can transform into a “crypto version asset management company.”

Perp DEX Track: Reshaping the Contract Market Landscape. The Hyperliquid ETH-USDT liquidation event saw large-scale liquidations of the ETH-USDT contract on Hyperliquid during the 1011 period, with temporary liquidity shortages causing price dislocation. This event revealed the liquidity vulnerability of on-chain contract markets during extreme market conditions: market makers withdrew funds, causing a sharp drop in depth; the liquidation mechanism relied on oracles and on-chain prices, with response speed constrained by block confirmations; when user margin was insufficient, the efficiency of forced liquidation was low, leading to additional losses. The ADL mechanism and funding rates reached historic lows. Decentralized contract platforms often use ADL (Automatic Deleveraging) to prevent negative balances, but in extreme conditions, ADL can cause ordinary users to be passively liquidated, resulting in secondary cascading effects. Meanwhile, funding rates dropped to multi-year lows after the 1011 event, indicating that leverage demand was severely suppressed and market activity declined. On-chain vs Centralized: Differences in Stress Resistance: Centralized Exchanges (CEX): stronger liquidity depth and higher matching efficiency, but the risk lies in user concentration; once a systemic cascading effect occurs, the scale can be enormous; Decentralized Exchanges (DEX): high transparency, but limited by block throughput and gas fees during extreme conditions, making them even weaker in stress resistance. This event shows that Perp DEX has not yet resolved the contradiction between 'efficiency and safety', performing worse than CEX during extreme conditions, and becoming a shortcoming in the market. Looking ahead to the future reshaping of the contract market landscape, the following trends may emerge: CEX continues to dominate: with advantages in liquidity and speed, CEX remains the main battlefield; DEX seeks innovation: enhancing stress resistance through off-chain matching + on-chain settlement, cross-chain margining, etc.; hybrid models rise: some new platforms may adopt a CEX-DEX hybrid structure, balancing efficiency and transparency; regulatory pressure increases: after the 1011 event, the liquidation chain of the contract market has drawn attention, and may face stricter leverage restrictions in the future.

The repricing logic of the three major tracks: Meme track: From frenzy to retreat, it may return to niche culture and branding direction in the future, making it difficult to recreate a liquidity center at the full market level. DAT track: The premium logic is compressed, large companies have strong risk resistance, while small companies are highly vulnerable, and ETFs will become long-term alternative competitors. Perp DEX track: Extreme market conditions expose liquidity and efficiency flaws, and future technological innovation and institutional reform are needed; otherwise, it will still be difficult to compete with CEX. The 1011 event is not only a market liquidation but also the starting point for the repricing of the tracks. Meme has lost its bubble support, DAT has entered a rational valuation stage, and Perp DEX faces challenges of reconstruction. It can be foreseen that the next round of expansion in the crypto market will inevitably take place under a more complex institutional and regulatory framework, and 1011 will become an important milestone in this turning point.

4. Investment Prospects and Risk Tips

The 1011 incident once again revealed the collective behavior pattern of the crypto market: during bullish trends, leverage usage often rises exponentially, with both institutions and retail investors tending to maximize capital efficiency in hopes of obtaining short-term excess returns. However, when external shocks occur, the excessive concentration of leverage makes the market extremely fragile. Data shows that the open interest (OI) of BTC and ETH perpetual contracts was nearing historical highs a week before 1011, with the funding rate once climbing to extreme levels. Accompanied by a price crash, the scale of liquidations accumulated to $19 billion within hours, forming a typical “herd stampede”: once market expectations reversed, investors rushed to close positions and flee en masse, further exacerbating the price avalanche. The event sparked heated discussions about the “TACO trade” (Trump Anticipated China Outcome trade), which is essentially a pre-pricing and speculative operation based on signals from Trump’s policies. The market generally believes that Trump is adept at creating price volatility through extreme rhetoric and policy surprises, thereby indirectly manipulating market expectations. Some funds even laid out short positions before the news was announced, leading to an asymmetric game: on one side are retail investors and momentum funds with high leverage going long, while on the other side is the “smart money” engaging in “expected trading.” This arbitrage operation based on political signals has intensified the emotional disconnection and irrational volatility in the market.

Investor stratification: the old era “hope strategy” vs the new era “narrative arbitrage.” The 1011 incident highlighted the stratification differences in investor structure: old era investors still rely on the “hope strategy,” which is to hold long-term, believing that prices will rise due to macro liquidity or halving cycles, lacking awareness of structural market risks; new era investors are more adept at “narrative arbitrage,” utilizing policy news, macro signals, or on-chain fund flow dynamics to quickly switch positions, pursuing short-term risk-reward ratios. This stratification results in a lack of intermediate forces in extreme market conditions: either overly optimistic long-term investors passively bear losses, or high-frequency arbitrage funds dominate short-term fluctuations, exacerbating the overall market's violent swings. The 1011 incident once again proved that the crypto market has become highly financialized, unable to exist independently from the macro environment. The Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions, the state of dollar liquidity, and geopolitical frictions between China and the U.S. are all shaping the pricing logic of crypto assets in real time. From a regulatory perspective, countries around the world have begun to notice three major concerns: insufficient transparency: limited disclosure of stablecoins and derivatives collateral assets, which can easily trigger a trust crisis; user protection gaps: opaque leverage and liquidation mechanisms expose retail investors to asymmetric risks; financial stability risks: the chain reaction effects of the crypto market have already had spillover impacts on U.S. stocks and even the commodity markets. It is foreseeable that future regulation will focus on improving transparency, protecting user rights, and establishing a stable framework that connects with traditional finance. In the short term, the market will enter a “de-leveraging” phase. Funding rates have fallen to negative values, indicating a significant contraction in bullish momentum; after the leverage cleanup, BTC and ETH may gradually stabilize at key support levels, while market volatility remains high but tends to converge. The recovery space for high-risk assets like meme coins is limited, whereas staking derivatives and stablecoin ecosystems with robust cash flows may become a safe haven during the recovery process. The pace of market recovery depends on two factors: the speed of on-site leverage digestion and whether there is marginal improvement in the macro environment. The high correlation between Federal Reserve liquidity and the crypto market is significant. In recent years, the correlation between Federal Reserve liquidity and crypto market prices has significantly increased. When dollar liquidity tightens, the issuance of stablecoins slows, and the on-chain fund pool depth decreases, directly weakening the market's capacity. Conversely, when liquidity is eased or expectations for interest rate peaks strengthen, the crypto market often rebounds first. Therefore, the market conditions in the coming months largely depend on the Federal Reserve's policy direction before the end of the year. If the interest rate hike cycle indeed ends, the market may welcome a phase of recovery; if the dollar remains strong, risk assets will still be under pressure.

Regulatory Trends: Transparency, User Protection, Financial Stability Framework. The focus of regulation in various countries will include: Transparency of Stablecoin Reserves: Requiring disclosure of asset composition to avoid “shadow banking”; Regulation of Leverage and Clearing Mechanisms: Setting reasonable leverage limits and increasing risk control buffers; Systemic Risk Firewall: Establishing cross-market risk monitoring to prevent crypto risks from spilling over into the banking system. For investors, regulation may bring short-term uncertainty, but in the long run, it helps reduce systemic risk and enhance institutional confidence in entering the market. Risk points and opportunities in the coming months. Risk Points: Ongoing escalation of US-China trade tensions further impacting risk assets; Stablecoins or derivatives may experience localized decoupling again, triggering market panic; If the Federal Reserve maintains a hawkish stance, deteriorating liquidity will drag down crypto valuations. Opportunity Points: High-quality staking derivatives (such as LST, re-staking agreements) may benefit from safe-haven demand; The compliance process for stablecoins brings long-term increments of institutional and compliant funds; Quality public chains and DeFi blue chips hold medium to long-term layout value after valuation corrections. The 1011 bloodbath was a collective awakening in the crypto market, reminding investors that crypto assets have long been deeply embedded in global financial logic, and that leverage overextension and herd effects will amplify risks under extreme conditions. In the coming months, the market's recovery path will depend on the progress of deleveraging and shifts in macro policies, and regulatory trends will gradually clarify under the framework of transparency and financial stability. For investors, risk management and narrative identification skills will be key to navigating high-volatility cycles.

V. Conclusion

After the 1011 incident, the investment logic in the crypto market is undergoing a profound repricing. For investors in different tracks, this crisis is not only a loss but also a mirror reflecting the advantages and disadvantages of their respective models. First, investors in the Meme track need to recognize that the essence of Meme is “narrative-driven short-cycle flow assets.” During a bull market, social effects and FOMO can amplify price increases, but under systemic shocks, the weaknesses of lacking cash flow and underlying value are easily exposed. Secondly, investors in the DAT track must be wary of the contraction of premium logic. Large treasury models like MicroStrategy still possess risk resistance due to their financing ability and brand advantages; however, small and medium DAT companies tend to face discounts first under liquidity shocks due to their excessive reliance on token issuance and re-staking returns. Third, Perp DEX investors need to face the inadequacy of on-chain liquidity in extreme market conditions. Finally, from a global perspective, liquidity fragmentation will be the norm in the future. Against the backdrop of high US dollar interest rates, tightening regulations, and complicated cross-chain ecosystems, market funds will become more dispersed and volatility more frequent. Investors need to build “resilient portfolios”: on one hand, by controlling leverage and diversifying positions to adapt to volatility, and on the other hand, locking in assets with cash flow, institutional resilience, and ecological binding advantages. The 1011 incident tells us that the evolution logic of crypto investment is shifting from “pure speculation” to “adaptive survival”: investors who can adjust strategies and identify structural value will gain stronger survival abilities, while those who blindly chase bubbles and leverage will inevitably be eliminated in the next systemic shock.