When even the well-known Robinhood account hack doesn't deter people from rushing in, is it a sign that the on-chain market sentiment has peaked?

The last significant on-chain event involving a "hacked social media account rug pull" in Robinhood's history occurred on July 13th when a hacker compromised the X account of SpaceXAI, added a verified checkmark to a mocking coin of Sam Altman, and tweeted about it.

Hacking incidents where accounts are hijacked to promote coins are often seen as a signal of a short-term market top. However, at that time, we viewed it as a short-term normal pullback. The reason being that $CASHCAT had surged from a $15 million market cap to $230 million in just 4 days, so a retracement was expected. As a new chain with room for further development, claiming that the overall market had peaked may have been premature.

Now, it was Robinhood CEO Vlad's X account that was compromised. The hacker used Vlad's account to declare "Vladhood" as the Robinhood Chain's mascot, indicating that this coin would be listed on the Robinhood App.

When a coin with a clear contract address like this emerges, everyone immediately suspects an account compromise, yet without hesitation, they rush to buy. As long as Vlad hasn't realized and deleted the tweet, it's a game of market dynamics. Just like before, there was another quick-to-click story of someone getting rich, with @iso1000x sharing how he promptly noticed Vlad's profile picture change, swiftly searched for the ticker using GMGN, bought in, and turned 4 ETH (approximately $7,400) into 48.6 ETH (around $91,780) in less than 30 seconds. A few clicks of the mouse, and $80k was made.

But the story didn't end there. Although Vlad later deleted the hacker's tweet with the contract address, the changed profile picture remained, leading the market to speculate whether this subtle action was deliberate. Many players gambled that Vlad might follow CZ's approach to $4 back then, where a tweet supporting the CTO suddenly turned the hacker's rug pull into a community coin that skyrocketed to a billion-dollar market cap due to FOMO.

The suspense lingered until 10 a.m. when Vlad finally reverted his profile picture. It was only then that the hacker's coin plummeted from a $4 million market cap to below $1 million in a single red candle.

Here we are going to analyze the logic of the situation. Simply stating "hacker stole funds and issued tokens" as a market top signal is purely a matter of impression. So this time, what might be the reason we should be more concerned about a potential pullback?

Portraying this Vlad's token hack as Robinhood's $4 moment is a form of "overly optimistic clinging to past glories." After this excessive optimism is shattered, it could affect the sustainability of short-term sentiment, which is the core reason we are starting to worry about the risk.

If we look back at the events during the $4 era, a little earlier, H posted on social media about manually distributing Binance wallet funds, and we could always see Customer Service Rep Xiao H appearing in X's timeline, asking for people to test the Binance wallet. A little later, Binance launched a BSC bull market with a Chinese ticker.

Suggesting that the $4 hack was all orchestrated by Binance may seem a bit conspiratorial, but the subsequent tweet supporting $4's CTO definitely had some element of driving Binance wallet market dominance. Generally, in an incident where an account is hacked but used to issue tokens, large companies surely consider more factors than us small retail investors. To us retail investors, it may just seem like a tweet supporting the CTO community, a few keyboard taps away from making a fortune. But have you ever considered some basic questions, such as the current token distribution? What if this tweet is sent out, causing a quick price surge, followed immediately by a crash? Who will manage that situation?

Many coincidences, when thought about carefully, may not really be coincidences at all. After the Trump token issuance, there were many incidents of hacked accounts issuing tokens, such as Nasdaq and NASA accounts being hacked for token issuance, all ending without any explanation—tweets were sent by hackers, and retail investors pressed the buy button themselves, and the more explanations, the more trouble ensues.

This is the normal response, and Robinhood's response follows a similar principle. On the Robinhood Wallet, you cannot find Vlad's token by name or contract address; it has been blocked. On Uniswap, this token has also been blacklisted, preventing trading.

Given Robinhood's official stance, the probability of it becoming another $4 is very low—the $4 case ostensibly bet on someone becoming CTO + receiving support from CZ, but in reality, the only substantial outcome of these two coincidences is an official tacitly approved setup. Otherwise, it would have been easy for someone to become CTO; the issue is that if the CTO does not receive recognition and support, and there is no conspiracy funding behind it, no matter how much you C, how much you T, or how much you O, the price will not rise.

This kind of optimism letdown may prompt everyone to "cool down" a bit, returning to a more rational state rather than FOMO-ing out of fear of missing any get-rich-quick opportunities. We always say, as the market plays on, everyone starts to "play dead," and it's not without reason.

Another event that happened yesterday was Stable chain minting a meme token called $FEFER, which at one point surpassed a $10 million market cap. The trigger was Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino referencing a Tether Wallet tweet that compiled many videos from around the world showcasing various pronunciations of the word Tether, jokingly pronouncing it "Fefer" and including a dinosaur toy meme.

Then, yesterday afternoon marked the beginning of a highly FOMO-inducing period. Bridges like relays had their capacities maxed out, and everyone was asking where else they could bridge their funds to. This chain had almost been a ghost chain before, and suddenly with so many meme players rushing in, it was overwhelmed. The official team even came out saying they are strengthening the RPC and providing more cross-chain liquidity for everyone to bridge over. Come on, guys, where were you before?

Although the user experience on this chain feels extremely poor, everyone hopes it can become the next Robinhood chain, with "Tether couldn't help but come and pump the price." The reality is, the Stable team's shilling is indeed impressive, being able to hype up a ticker like $FEFER to this extent is truly rare, but this chain is at most led by Bitfinex and supported by the Tether CEO; it is not the "golden child" of a Robinhood chain.

$FEFER briefly surged to a high point of over $15 million yesterday, only to drop back to a market cap of under $3 million within 6 hours, and it is now back to around a $7.5 million market cap.

At this point, we can summarize:

- The concern is that excessive expectations and optimistic letdowns may hurt the already potentially overstretched sentiment, leading to a possible top

- Regarding the Robinhood chain, whether the US stock meme narrative can become the leading story after the correction is crucial for sentiment recovery. The key assets to watch are $GME and $AI

- For the Stable Chain, $FEFER is still in a somewhat awkward position. If it does not receive a public statement of support from the Tether CEO in the future and only uses his tweets as memes, the sentiment will not be sustained.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia