#预测市场 Seeing Infinex's rise, a familiar feeling arises. Going from a 93% bullish straight line down to 18%, the speed of this reversal is reminiscent of the era in 2017 when project teams "temporarily changed the rules."

Looking back, the problem has never been how complex the mechanism itself is, but that once trust is broken, it’s very hard to repair. Retail investors dislike lock-up periods, whales dislike quota restrictions, and Infinex simply removed personal limits—this "listening to opinions and then changing" approach instead makes people more uneasy. The longer you stay in the crypto space, the more you realize one truth: the initial design logic of a project best reflects its true intentions. Changing rules midway often hints that the previous decisions were flawed.

Another interesting phenomenon is the insider trading controversy in prediction markets. When the real estate prediction market on Polymarket just launched, people were already discussing "shorting a friend's house." Wintermute CEO came out to oppose, saying it damages market respect—this sounds like saying "legitimate doesn’t mean appropriate." It reminds me of many cycles in emerging markets throughout history: when participants start defending behaviors with fuzzy boundaries, it’s often a sign that the ecosystem is about to have problems.

From ICOs to IDOs and now various token issuance mechanisms, I’ve seen too many projects use clever designs to hide simple greed. The story of Infinex teaches us a simple truth: no matter how smart the mechanism, it cannot withstand the damage to confidence caused by a rule change. These lessons paid tuition ten years ago, and they are still being replayed today.