#稳定币市场 85% of stablecoin trading is controlled by the top 1000 wallets, and this data looks a bit suspicious. The number of P2P transactions is high, but the proportion of total value is low, a typical "seems lively but actually controlled by institutional players" situation.

From a copying perspective, this highly concentrated liquidity pattern is actually a double-edged sword. On one hand, tracking the operational logic of these large wallets can be clearer—institutional-level copying targets usually have stronger execution and more standardized risk management; on the other hand, the higher the centralization, the more severe the impact of black swan events. A large transfer from a super address could trigger a chain reaction.

This is why, when building a copying portfolio, I don’t put all my eggs in one basket. Even if I focus on a certain trader’s strategy, I still diversify according to my risk tolerance—conservative investors can follow the long-term layout of institutional wallets, while aggressive investors should pay more attention to abnormal signals from small and medium addresses, and think in reverse about potential liquidity traps.

The more obvious the centralization issue in the stablecoin market, the more important it is to stay alert to risk when copying. Good-looking data doesn’t necessarily mean the opportunity is safe.