For me it's the constant feel of everything being "exciting" while no real information is actually conveyed. It's a common tactic of both AI and clickbaity articles. There's no hard evidence here, just hearsay. Nothing really to report until there's more information. I don't want drama in reporting, I want facts. But I guess I'm an outlier which is how we got both this AI style and the clickbait it was trained on...

It also doesn't help that all the title graphics have the same dramatic feeling and are certainly AI generated.

Waiting for the only human I trust in this space to report on this:

https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/

“It’s not about human writing. It’s about the message.”

AI is turning the entire web into LinkedIn itisnotaboutism.

This this this so much. Thanks for pointing it out.

> Ten minutes is not a coincidence. It is a trade.

Matt Levine has a take: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2026-02-24/ai-...

> Look, I am sorry. But if you go to Jump Trading and Jane Street and say “hello, I have an unregulated poorly designed mechanism that could lead to $50 billion of market value collapsing overnight, would you like to trade with me,” they are going to say yes, but their eyes are going to light up, you know? If at Time 0 you give them an extremely gameable system that can produce billions of dollars of profit, at Time 10 your system is going to be a smoking wreckage and they are going to have billions of dollars of profit. That’s their whole job, you know? I couldn’t tell you in advance what all the intermediate steps will be, and in fact in hindsight I cannot tell you what the intermediate steps actually were, how Jump and Jane Street made money off the collapse of Terra. But as a heuristic, I mean, come on. Terra was like “hello we have a balloon full of money, here is a pin, dooooooon’t pop the balloon.” Guess what!

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/jane-street-accused-o... is a pretty normal one

The awful graphic at the top is certainly not made by a human.

Where is "it's not X. It's Y"? I didn't notice it.

Jane Street was also banned from trading in India because they couldn’t stop manipulating the market

> It makes you wonder how much fraud occurs in tradfi but it goes undiscovered because nobody can self-custody their paper metals or paper stocks.

Better not mention the FinCEN files either. [0] Where over $100B to $2TN dollars worth of illicit transations from criminals and fraudsters were knowingly allowed by banks and even ponzi schemes were freely allowed as well [1].

[0] https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/global-bank...

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54225572

Doesn’t that 10m lag make it seem more like insider training? An automated trade would happen nearly instantly, 10m is plenty of time for insiders to send some texts or make some calls.

Especially since it's a public ledger. Anyone with a program watching the chain is going to see it. From there they can exercise whatever trade they want for their gain.

It's a bad headline. They used publicly available blockchain transactions and didn't cause the collapse of the Terra ecosystem. Terra collapsed because it was a Ponzi scheme offering 20% APY on a fake stablecoin. The Terra stablecoin was not backed by real dollars, but instead by a cryptocurrency called Luna that did nothing else other than let you issue Terra stablecoins.

I don't really follow this space, but is evaporating $50bn not a concern to anybody?

That’s the lesson we should be learning, but I’m worried the lesson we’re actually learning <sees 18yo crypto bro drive by in a Lamborghini> is that regulations hinder innovation.

It was a system built on sleight of hand, with a cover story just complex enough that it worked for a while.

How do you create a stablecoin? There are two ways in general. One is to have it backed 1:1 with a bank account somewhere that contains the actual currency it represents. In theory you then allow people to freely exchange back and forth between tokens and dollars. Tether kinda/sort works this way in theory.

The other way is to play games with algorithms and try to use the market against itself to create stability. Terra (UST) attempted to do this by running a complex scheme that leveraged a floating backing token, and a smart contract which allowed you to exchange 1 UST for $1 worth of newly created Luna. If UST starts to lose its peg and become worth less than a dollar, people buy it to exchange for $1 worth of Luna, sell the Luna for a profit, so arbitrage sorts the price out. If it becomes worth more than a dollar, you buy Luna, burn it to convert to new UST, then sell that for a profit.

How do you get Luna to be worth anything though? Well you offer inducements like a ridiculous interest rate, high enough that anyone outside the cryptocurrency bubble would immediately see a red flag, and which then has to be subsidised somehow ...

Even with the best will in the world systems like this could best be described as meta-stable, i.e. it'll smooth out minor perturbations but there are limits. And that limit was Luna dumping massively.

A ponzi crypto scheme? It is the only kind.

Probably coincidence - general market is up strongly too. Or, too hard to tell anyway.

You have to connect this to the market or the article. I certainly don’t believe Jane Street is keeping crypto down somehow. What kind of non-conspiracy theory are you proposing?