Some people speculate that the market maker is @ GSR_io, but I don't quite believe it. Because I have been in contact with GSR, a veteran market maker, there are a series of market making target requirements according to normal contracts, such as: It is necessary to maintain liquidity requirements (Depth) within a certain range, such as a price difference of ± 2% for a depth of 10000 Spread: For example, maintaining a bid ask spread of no more than 1% Order Book Presence: This' market maker 'consistently holds a certain proportion in the first five orders on both sides of the buying and selling market And the '0Buy market maker' who was punished this time is clearly a wild roader. Perhaps he had anticipated the selling pressure long ago, so he chose not to make a market at all, and even chose to use the chips lent to him by the project side to further break the already extremely fragile liquidity order. This approach has already broken through the general consensus in the industry regarding the role of "market making", and is considered excessive. Being punished is not unjustified at all. I wouldn't have such an atmosphere if he hung up to pay the bill. Imagine, who doesn't know that the 3% freelancing chips have a lot of selling pressure when the market sentiment is not good? If market makers in the future all learn from this chicken thief's MM and directly smash without buying at the opening, which Cex can withstand it? Which retail investor dares to buy at a low price? This is nothing more than market making. TM is already a cancer. So I support Binance killing one as a warning to others. When the industry is bearish, it is indeed necessary to actively maintain market order, otherwise it will be too difficult for retail investors and project parties.