Most of us entered the crypto world for one of three reasons: the love of technology, the lure of money, or the thrill of rebellion. Maybe it was all three—or maybe something entirely different.
For me, it started with frustration. I felt cheated by a system that never worked in my favor. I dreamed of becoming a millionaire, believing in every institution that promised to guide me there. Yet, time after time, those same systems failed.
Then came crypto—a movement that spoke directly to that feeling of defiance. It promised to upend the status quo, to flip the system on its head. Bitcoin, especially, felt like a revolution in code. But what if I told you that the very system we thought we were escaping never really left? That it’s not the same people in charge—but the same storyline playing out once again.
This realization hit me while reading Number Go Up by Zeke Faux. In one chapter, Faux interviews a man who claims that 90% of the crypto market is controlled by a small circle of individuals connected through a WhatsApp group. At first, Faux dismisses him as paranoid. But as he digs deeper, the claim starts to sound less like a conspiracy and more like an uncomfortable truth.
The illusion of decentralization cracked again recently when DefiLlama delisted Aster due to “unusual data.” It was a reminder that even here, in a supposedly open and transparent system, manipulation still lurks. The truth is, it has been with us from the very beginning—not because of blockchain or code, but because of human nature.
We are wired to pick winners. And Aster wanted to win. It wanted to outshine Hyperliquid at any cost—even if that meant resorting to wash trading.
What Is Wash Trading?
Wash trading is one of the oldest tricks in the book—a scheme that long predates crypto. It involves buying and selling the same asset simultaneously to create a false appearance of market activity.
In traditional markets, it’s illegal. The practice gives the illusion of demand, volume, and momentum, but in reality, no real trade has occurred. Ownership doesn’t change; perception does.
How Wash Trading Works
Wash trading can happen in a few ways:
-
Multiple accounts: A trader uses several accounts—selling from one and buying from another—to simulate activity.
-
Broker collusion: A trader and a broker coordinate trades that look legitimate but aren’t.
-
Automated bots: High-frequency trading bots can be programmed to perform thousands of wash trades in seconds.
Why It Happens
At its core, wash trading is about manipulation. The motives are always the same:
-
To inflate trading volume and make an asset seem more popular than it is.
-
To manipulate prices, creating the illusion of a steady rise and luring in unsuspecting investors.
-
To gain visibility, since many exchanges and ranking platforms reward higher volume with better placement.
The practice became so widespread in traditional finance that it was officially banned in the United States in 1936. By then, it had already helped fuel the speculative frenzy that led to the 1929 market crash and the Great Depression.
So it’s no surprise that when Bitcoin appeared, wash trading followed. Human greed simply found a new arena. Today, more than 95% of all cryptocurrencies have been issued by creators chasing quick profits rather than long-term value.
A Simple Example
Imagine Alice controls two exchange accounts—Account A and Account B.
She sells 10 ETH at $2,000 from Account A and simultaneously buys those same 10 ETH from Account B at the same price. She repeats this hundreds of times.
The result? An illusion of heavy trading activity that draws real investors into what looks like a “hot” market.
This kind of behavior isn’t confined to tokens—it’s everywhere: in DeFi projects, NFT marketplaces, and even major Web3 ecosystems.
The Harsh Truth
The uncomfortable truth is that wash trading isn’t an external problem—it’s a reflection of us. We built this system. We play in it. And we keep it alive every day.
Crypto didn’t create human greed; it simply exposed it on the blockchain for everyone to see.
So the real question isn’t whether the system is broken—it’s whether we are ready to stop feeding it.
Leave a Reply