Recently, the topic of USD1 has indeed become somewhat absurd. A large number of traditional media accounts are reporting news like "Bitcoin crashes to $24,100," which looks quite alarming. But honestly, as long as you have a slight understanding of trading structures, you can see that—this is simply a misreading of the trading pair.
What is the truth? The so-called "flash crash" actually came from a sudden spike in the BTC/USD1 trading pair a couple of days ago. This does not represent the mainstream price, nor is it the consensus of the entire market, and it definitely does not mean Bitcoin is really having problems.
The key detail is this: the trading volume for this pair in one day was only $67 million, with liquidity even less than 1/15 of BTC/USDT. Under such depth, forget about spikes—being slightly hit by someone’s order book is commonplace.
But exchanges didn’t hide the candlestick charts, and the media are too lazy to look at trading volume, market depth, or order book thickness. They just quickly throw out "Bitcoin flash crash." So, the technical volatility in low liquidity turns into a news story that triggers emotional panic. This classic distortion of information is how it’s done.
This incident once again illustrates a common but often misunderstood point—the risks in the crypto space are often not in the price itself, but in ignorance of market structure.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
3
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AirdropHunterXM
· 6h ago
The media is starting to collect IQ taxes again, truly unbelievable
View OriginalReply0
AllInAlice
· 6h ago
The media's recent behavior is truly outrageous. Claiming 67 million in liquidity is overhyped?
Once again, falling for a clickbait news story that taxes your intelligence.
So, the real fear isn't the decline, but those writers who don't even look at the market.
Just thinking about it makes me angry—who still believes such news?
With such poor liquidity, daring to call this the mainstream price—laughable.
The biggest enemies in the crypto world are these media outlets and ignorant people.
USD1 should be removed from my trading pair list.
That's why I never look at news, only at candlestick charts.
67 million? And you call that a trading pair?
Ignorance truly has a powerful destructive force.
View OriginalReply0
NotAFinancialAdvice
· 6h ago
The media really should learn to do some in-depth research before spreading rumors. They dare to cause nationwide panic over price spikes in low-liquidity trading pairs, it's outrageous.
Recently, the topic of USD1 has indeed become somewhat absurd. A large number of traditional media accounts are reporting news like "Bitcoin crashes to $24,100," which looks quite alarming. But honestly, as long as you have a slight understanding of trading structures, you can see that—this is simply a misreading of the trading pair.
What is the truth? The so-called "flash crash" actually came from a sudden spike in the BTC/USD1 trading pair a couple of days ago. This does not represent the mainstream price, nor is it the consensus of the entire market, and it definitely does not mean Bitcoin is really having problems.
The key detail is this: the trading volume for this pair in one day was only $67 million, with liquidity even less than 1/15 of BTC/USDT. Under such depth, forget about spikes—being slightly hit by someone’s order book is commonplace.
But exchanges didn’t hide the candlestick charts, and the media are too lazy to look at trading volume, market depth, or order book thickness. They just quickly throw out "Bitcoin flash crash." So, the technical volatility in low liquidity turns into a news story that triggers emotional panic. This classic distortion of information is how it’s done.
This incident once again illustrates a common but often misunderstood point—the risks in the crypto space are often not in the price itself, but in ignorance of market structure.