The price of ZKJ coin suddenly experienced a big dump, causing a stir in the market. Analyzing this event, it seems that all parties have reasons to shirk responsibility.

The project party may argue: "The price drop is caused by the independent decision of large fund holders to sell off, and has nothing to do with us." However, it is puzzling that such a large-scale project can be easily crushed by a single large holder, which in itself is worth questioning.

The large fund holder who sold off may say: "I am just managing my own assets, the losses of others should not be borne by me." However, it is worth noting that he chose to sell off a large amount during a time of high market enthusiasm and ample funds, and this timing choice is hard not to raise suspicions of intentional behavior.

The Alpha trading platform may declare: "We only provide trading channels, and the investment risks should be borne by the users themselves." However, without the trust endorsement from a well-known brand like Binance, investors may not be willing to invest such large amounts of money. Trying to distance themselves after a crisis obviously lacks fairness.

The final result is that all parties in the industry chain seem to have found excuses for themselves, leaving ordinary investors in the dark: the profit opportunities they originally anticipated suddenly turned into evaporating funds, and they lost their principal as soon as they participated.

This incident has once again sparked deep reflection on the regulation of the cryptocurrency market and the mechanisms for protecting investors. In an environment lacking effective regulation, how should investors protect their rights and interests? How should the boundaries of responsibility and authority among project parties, large holders, and platforms be clarified? These questions deserve serious attention from the entire industry.